Bumper Sticker Ethics S'Wilkins ITS YOUR DUTY KANTIAN ETHICS

1
Bumper Sticker Ethics S.WilkinsITS YOUR
DUTYKANTIAN ETHICS

• Situation1
   
• Soldier attacks-gun position
• Likely he will die in the first wave
• (Saving Private Ryan)
• Situation2
• Juror
• Defendant has a long criminal history. Instinct
  says He is guilty. But she must decide on
  evidence alone. Not guilty.
•  
• Two situations involving DUTY regardless of
  consequences 
• Centrepiece of Kants Moral Philosophy
• Duty

2

• Being good is a matter of reverence for duty
• People who follow Kant care about rules and
  motives not results.
•  For Kant ethical obligation is not (like
  examples given) based on law.
  Military/Criminal.
•  Ethical duties should be the same for all in
  everyday circumstance.
•  Kant Moral truth stands by itself it is
  AUTONOMOUS and Self-Contained
• Rejects consequentialist ethics.
• CONSEQUENTIALISM - Relies on what is, it can
  never get us to ethics (OUGHT). Ethical decision
  making needs something other than consequences. 
• Kant Reason alone should be the foundation.
• The ethical rules we adopt are those which show
  themselves to be logically consistent no self
  contradiction. Moral principles that meet the
  demands of reason are always valid for everyone.

3

• For Kant ethical decisions are about
•  
• MOTIVE
• NOT
• RESULTS
•  
• We should act out of the intention to do our DUTY

4
The Categorical Imperative

• How do we discover what our DUTIES are?
• Answer Through the use of categorical
  imperatives.
•  
• A categorical imperative would be one which
  represented an action as objectively necessary in
  itself apart from its relation to a further end
• Categorical That which is Absolute.
• A C.I. is then a command/law that allows no
  exceptions.
• C.I. is a general axiom that is not itself a
  moral rule, but a means of arriving at a specific
  moral rule that applies to everyone.
• It tells us how to know which ethical rules
  should be acted upon.
• C.I.
• Learn Act only on that maxim(1)
• through which you can at the same time
• will that it should be a
• UNIVERSAL LAW.(2)
•  
•  

5

• Example I borrow some money, promise to pay it
  back by a certain time though I know this is not
  possible.
• Maxim(1)(Proposed rule of action)
• Whenever I believe myself short of money, I will
  borrow money, promise to pay it back, though I
  know that this will never be done. 
• Should (1) become a C.I. (2)/universal law?
• Kant NO! Universalising a maxim like We should
  make promises we cannot keep, is ultimately
  Self-defeating/irrational.
• Why? We deceive someone. We cannot exist without
  truth.
•  If all people lied there would be no truth left
  to deceive someone about.
•  
• UNIVERSALIZING
  
• We should make promises we cannot keep
• Would defeat the very purpose of using deceit
  because no one would believe any promise.  Since
  universalisation of a principle that says we
  promise to do what we cannot do, makes it
  impossible to deceive someone, it is
  self-contradictory it violates reason.
•  
• Summary If we would want everyone to act on a
  maxim under consideration, it is our moral
  obligation to do it ourselves. It is our DUTY.
•  

6
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE VERSION TWO -

•  Kant provides a second version of the C.I.
•  
• Act in such a way that you always treat
  humanity, whether in your own person or in the
  person of any other, never simply as a means, but
  always at the same time as the end
•  
• Basically Do our actions treat humanity as an
  end or do they use people as a means????????????
•  
• Kant People are Intrinsically Valuable they
  should never be manipulated to achieve a goal.

7

• Example Suicide- In this case we should not
  treat ourselves as a means. One would contemplate
  suicide only if one thought some benefit could be
  achieved by it-such as relief from anxiety.
• This is morally wrong. In killing
  ourselves, we use a person (ourselves) as a means
  to an end (freedom from pain).

8

• Example
• People are to be treated as ends-if they are
  used as a means to an end they do not have
  freedom to make decisions.
• 1.  I compliment your appearance because I want
  you to like me
• 2.  You are being treated as a tool and not as a
  person with inherent value.
• 3  Why? Your freedom to respond demands on your
  ability to trust what I say. Insincere
  compliments limit your choice of responses and
  manipulate you.
• 4.  You are not able to freely respond to what I
  really think.
• 5. I have used you as a means to get something
  I want.

9

• Treating people as an ends/inherently valuable,
  corrects a problem of consequentialist systems
  i.e.
•  
• The happiness of the majority/or some other end
  opens the door for exploiting people- i.e.
  SLAVERY.
•  
• Enslaving people constitutes the use of these
  individuals for the happiness of the majority.
  This cannot for Kant be tolerated
•  

10
POSITIVES

• 1.    Duty-Intuition that some things are right
  no matter what. Kants emphasis on Duty helps
  anchor morality so that we are not swayed by
  changing moods/emotions or sidetracked by
  unpredictable consequences. Duty as a basis
  helps prevent choices being arbitrary and
  changeable.

11

• 2.    Laws like Do not steal have an objective
  status -
• This separates us from emotions/wants. It does
  not care about how we feel about stealing.
  Similarly, Kant takes us beyond Non Ethical
  questions like
• What do I want?
• And to ethical questions like
• What is RIGHT?

12

• 3. For Kant ethics is like Mathematics or
  science
• Truth is truth. Even if we change our thinking-
  the universe does not change.
•  
• So Ethical Laws do not change. They are not
  open to negotiation.
•  Kants system is attractive if you do not simply
  want to justify what you want to believe but
  really want to know what is right.
•  
• I want B to be true BUT
•  A is the truth.
•  

13

• 4. Ethics needs to be rational not irrational
  (this can be frightening).
•  
• Kant asserts that an ethical conclusion must be
  rationally supported this is preferable to a
  system that is not rationally supported.

14

• 5. Kant gives use a method of checking if our
  wants are ethical.
• we put ourselves in others shoes.
• we must avoid using people as means to
  an end.

15

• 6.Kant affirms Gods existence but God has no
  place in Kantian Ethics
• REASON alone is the foundation of moral truth.
•  
• However Christians can be attracted to Kants
  ethic
• There is objective moral truth.
• Many of Kants ethical rules parallel the 10
  commandments.
• Scripture-Ethical directives for all Kants
  rules Universalised.

16
Problems?

• 1.    What if there is a conflict
• C.I. Tell the truth- help a murder.
• Tell a lie- prevent a murder.
•  
• Telling a lie cannot be a C.I., so do we help
  the murderer?
•  
• We could create another C.I. e.g.
•  
• You should not help those who seek to murder
  innocent people.
• Now we have two opposite C.I.s.
• Kant does not help us choose!!!
•  
•  

• Where is he? Let me Kill him!
• Do I lie or do I tell him where Mr. C is?

17

• 2. Does Kant avoid circumstances completely?
•  
• Kant certainly uses consequences to determine an
  action is rational or not.
•  
• Never tell the truth Irrational world in which
  no one would believe you. Lies would be the norm.
•  
• On one hand Kant say consequences tell us
  nothing about ethics. On the other hand,
  consequences are consulted in determining whether
  a proposed rule is rational.
•  

18

• 3. Is every rule we would universalise, a moral
  duty?
•  
• We could make C.I.s which are neither
  contradictory and are universalizable. But they
  could be
• A.   Morally neutral.
• B.   So defines that it benefits one particular
  person.
• i.e.
• smile at strangers
•  
• How do we know laws about honesty are more
  ethically significant than laws about smiling?
•  

19

• 4. Is reason sufficient?
• Human reason is finite.
• To make our reason the sole standard of right and
  wrong leaves any ethical system open to error!
•   A failure to reason
  Correctly
  ethically
  Might have greater
  
  Consequences.

• 22 3
• Oops, I made a mistake

20

• 5. What of love?
• Justicea Dutya People as endsa Reasona
• But where is Gods lover
• Mercyr
• Forgivenessr
• For the Christian Kants ethic allows us to
  fulfil our duty without loving people. This is a
  problem. There is no sense of fulfilling the
  demands of ethics because of love of God and
  personsCOLD LEGALISM.
•  JACQUES MARTAIN
• One might say that ethics of pure reason is a
  Christian ethic whose theological root has been
  severed leaving only the stiffened branches.

21
aDutyMoral lawReasonJusticeDignity of people
STEVE WILKINS

• rDuties do sometimes conflict. Which do we
  choose. Kant does not help

• rLacks humanity
• And concern for People.
• Kant allow someone to be murdered
• To avoid lying!!!
• Something is wrong