140 likes | 297 Views
Kant (6). Morality and autonomy Problems with Kant’s theory. 3 formulations of the CI. Universal law formulation : Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (421).
E N D
Kant (6) Morality and autonomy Problems with Kant’s theory
3 formulations of the CI • Universal law formulation: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (421). • Formula of humanity: Act always so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of anyone else, never merely as a means but always at the same time as an end (429). • Formula of autonomy: Reject all maxims that are not consistent with the will's own legislation of universal law (431).
I propose the maxim I find a maxim acceptable only if I can consistently propose it as a general rule I can do this only if everyone can find it acceptable (2nd formulation) Testing a maxim by the CI is seeing if it is consistent with the idea of the rational will of every person as legislative of universal law. Deriving the 3rd formulation
Elaboration • The CI procedure binds agents only to principles they can give to each other as legislative members of a possible “kingdom of ends” • By using the CI procedure I view all persons, including myself, as autonomous, that is as free beings equally sovereign with respect to the terms of our association.
Connection with contractualism • Contractualism says that the correct moral principles are the ones that specify terms of association that would be included in an ideal agreement among the members of society • Kant’s ideal agreement is the agreement on maxims that would be accepted as reasonable by legislators for a possible kingdom of ends.
Autonomy vs. heteronomy • Autonomy: capacity of the will to be a law to itself (independently of any property of the objects of volition) (440) • Heteronomy: determination of the will by an external or alien cause (441)
CI procedure reflects our autonomy • If we can follow the CI, then our action stems solely from our powers of practical reasoning, that is, from our rational will. • Our will is not determined by an attraction to any object outside itself--neither by an inclination (Humean passion) nor by an attraction to a perceived objective order of values (Plato). • Plato and Hume treat the will as heteronomous
Four objections to the CI • Sly universalizer objection • Rules out morally irrelevant maxims • Problem of the social environment • Problem of dealing with evil
Sly universalizer objection • “By designing a suitably specific maxim, I can get approval for any action” • Example: I am to lie on a loan application when I am in financial difficulty with no other way of getting out of it, provided that I am or was the lecturer in Phil 241 at UWM in spring 2003, in order to ease the strain on my finances.
Possible replies • Objection ignores sincerity condition • Contrary to the objection, the maxim would not pass after all
CI rules out morally irrelevant maxims? • Example: I am to practice shooting hoops in the school court at 10 a.m. on Saturdays in order to sharpen my skills. • Possible reply: stated in this general way, it does raise a moral issue, and needs to be qualified
Problem of the social environment • Example: deceitful promising in circumstances of injustice • Possible diagnosis: this shows that Kant’s theory is at least incomplete, and needs to be complemented with a theory of justice and a morality for unjust situations
Problem of dealing with evil • Classic case: Lying to the Nazi who comes to the door looking for the Jewish family hiding in your attic. • Possible response: restrict Kant’s theory to ideal circumstances (the kingdom of ends); but then we need a theory for the non-ideal world. Could try a contractualist approach for this.