Download
1 / 14
140 likes | 155 Views
Explore Kantian ethics, contrasting with utilitarianism, highlighting how treating individuals as ends rather than means is central to moral acts and behaviors in society. Learn the significance of the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative in ethical decision-making and its implications.
E N D
The Problem of Morality Contemporary Western Philosophical Problems Lecture 7: Kantian ethics (2)
Problem with utilitarianism • Utilitarianism treats morality only as a means to some non-moral good, the greatest happiness for the greatest number. • Thus, whether one should be moral or whether one should comply with a moral law (e.g., “Do not cheat”) will depend on whether being moral or the compliance would maximize overall happiness of the society. • Thus, many immoral acts such as cheating, cutting-one-to-save-five, etc., would become “moral” according to utilitarianism. • Kant’s second formulation of the Categorical Imperative can avoid those problems.
1. Good as a means and good as an end • There are many good things in the world and all good things can be divided into two kinds of good things: good as a means and good as an end. • Good as a means is good as an instrumental value. Good as a means cannot exist by itself. It depends on something else in the world. • Good as an end is good as something valuable for its own sake. It exists by itself (Its existence does not depend on anything else in the world).
2. Second formulation • Kant: Every rational being exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will. “So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end and never as merely a means only.” • (1) Every human being is an end in himself. • (2) Therefore, it is never morally right to treat any person merely as a means. (The second formulation of Categorical Imperative).
Different expressions of the second formulation • An act is morally right if and only if the agent treats people as ends in themselves and not merely as a means. • An act is morally right if and only if the agent, in performing it, refrains from treating any person merely as a means.
Note: • The second formulation does not imply that we can never use others as a means but it does imply that we can never use others merely as a means. • If we do something against someone else’s will or force him or her to do something against his or her free will, we treat him or her merely as a means. • To treat someone as an end and not merely as a means is to respect him or her.
Kant believed that the two formations of the Categorical Imperative are equivalent because they yield the same results but few philosophers agree with him. We had better take the second formulation as a supplement of the first. Thus: • An act is morally right if and only if it can pass both the first and the second formulation.
3. Mappes’ explanation of using another person • Thomas Mappes tries to determine the meaning of “use of another person.” • Sexually using another person takes place whenever there is a violation of the requirement of voluntary informed consent to sexual interaction. For example, deception and coercion are examples of “using another person.”
4. Advantages • (1) It avoids the problem utilitarianism has. All persons are intrinsically valuable. So, it can avoid the problem of cutting one to save the five. • (2) It avoids the problems the first formulation has. For instance, the problem of the Nazi Fanatic and the problem of borrowing money whenever the agent has such and such a genetic code, because following those principles is to use people merely as a means.
5. Problems • (1) The other animals’ rights are excluded. • (2) Sometimes, we have to use people merely as a means. Consider two cases.
Case 1 • If we do not use a person merely as a means, we have to use more people merely as a means to him. For instance, there seem to be cases in which you must either treat A or treat B, not as an end, but as a means. If we isolate a man who is a carrier of typhoid or SARS, we are treating him merely as a means to the good of others. But if we refused to isolate him, we are treating other people merely as means to his comfort and good.
Case 2 • If the evil to be avoided is great enough, it would seem that we could violate any of the duties Kant identifies. For instance, if breaking a trivial promise could save a person’s life, then we can violate the duty or treat the person we promise merely as a means to the goal of saving another person’s life. If not telling the truth can save a person’s life, then take the lesser of two evils.
Prospect • Generally, the problem of Kant’s theory is that it cannot tell us what to do when duties conflict. • Ross’s theory tries to solve this problem. • Rawls’s theory tries to solve the problem Ross has: how to rank duties—by agreement from the original position (following Kant’s line of thought).
