Kantian

Ethics

Jem, Elaine, Georgina

 Deontological & Teleological
Deontological:
This theory is based on the idea that the
rightness or wrongness of an act is
independent of the consequences of this
action.
Teleological:
The correctness and incorrectness of an action
are judged on the outcomes of the action.
 A Brief introduction into Kant’s
philosophy
• He took the pros from rationalism and
empiricism:
Rationalism- claimed too much for reason
Empiricism- emphasized experience too much
• All our knowledge comes from sensation
•Our reason determines how we perceive
the world
•Time and space are attributes of perception
and not attributes of the physical world.
 Kant argued that ethical
statements are a priori synthetic:
A Priori= Knowledge that comes before sense experience
Synthetic= Knowledge that requires external verification
(that may be true or false)

A Priori synthetic means that a statement is knowable before

sense experience, but requires it for verification.
A Moral statement is a priori because ethical knowledge
comes from pure reason, but may also be right or wrong.

*Utilitarian’s believe that ethical knowledge comes from the

consequence of an action. It must therefore be a posteriori
- after experience.
We are born with a moral law
• Kant noted that people are aware of a moral
law at work within then.
• However, he did not believe in the existence
of a conscious but more a vague feeling of
good and bad.
• We know we have freedom because we
experience moral choice.
• ‘Two things fill the mind with ever new and
increasing admiration and awe the oftener
and more steadily we reflect on them: the
starry heaven above me and the moral law
within me’
Kant, I. Critique of Practical Reason
 Duties and Realities
• Kant felt a moral obligation to act in a certain
way and tried to find an explanation:
• ‘is/ought’ is=matter of fact Hume

ought=responsibility
• The attributes of the mind that are considered
desirable can be subverted into something bad.
• However, the desirable mental attributes can
be silly, for example, the aspiration to be
famous are usually held in check by the good
will. This good will is an essential part of
happiness.
 The exercise of a person’s free will in an
action becomes the criterion on which that
action is judged
• This idea was influenced by Kant’s belief that evidence alone
was insufficient ground on which to draw a conclusion, and
the conclusion is drawn in the mind.
• Empirical evidence cannot be used to define a moral good
(empirical= veritable by experience)
Senses could not be the source of moral choice:
 He then looked in ways in which a person’s reason should be
utilized
 Using reason, an individual would have excluded benefit,
curiosity and obedience to someone in authority. (Each of
these three being based on something external)
 Kant argued that we follow a moral command because
we feel that is is out DUTY
 The Three postulates of
practical reason:
God Immortality Freedom
If I feel a sense of duty, it The reward To be truly
is because the world is doesn’t seem free we have
designed in such a way accessible in this
that it matters that I act in world, yet it must to be able to
one way over another. exist. Therefore carry out all
There must be some Kant concluded of the
guarantee behind this we must look choices
sense of duty - a reward. beyond this life.
available to
Kant believed this reward
is happiness. us.

Kant to hostile to religion

 Kant’s deontological ideas:
• Kant believed that the experience of moral law
leads to our awareness of freedom. This sense
of freedom is used when we make moral
choices.
He believed that these moral decisions are
independent of any thought of consequence.
Acting morally is an end in itself.
Being moral is a matter of the categorical
imperative.
There is northing moral about carrying out an
action simply because of the intended outcome.
 The Universal Law
• Similar to the ‘Golden Rule’ (“Do unto
others as you would have them do to
you”)
• Kant intends that one’s actions become a
law that applies to all.
• Kant believed that doing something to
achieve something you want is not a
moral course of action (The
consequences of actions cannot be used
in judgement of its morality).
 An Example:
• Example: A desperately poor man considers
borrowing money from his friend in order to pay
debt collectors.
• He knows that he cannot hope of repaying his
friend, but he knows that the debt collectors will
leave him if he settles the debts.
• If he borrows money from his friend, the law he
uses would be “If you need money, lie about
your financial circumstances to borrow it.”
 Trust and Lying
• Kant said that the law used should
potentially not be universally
applicable, as no one would be able
to trust anyone or lend money.
• This is because lying would be
commonplace in the world if the law
was indeed universally applicable.
 Categorical Imperatism
Kant developed a system of three questions (formulations,
he called them), which should be asked of any action
before it is taken in order to decide upon the morality of
the action.
According to Kant, in order to determine the morality of
any situation we must:

1. Act only according to that maxim by which you can at

the same time will that it would become a universal law.
2. 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 an end.
3. So act as though you were, through your maxims, a
law making member of a kingdom of ends.
• ‘Act only according to that maxim (principle or
rule) by which you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law’.
• Humans are ends not merely as means
• This means that a human being is the most
important factor in any moral equation
• A human beings life must be respected and
dignified. Therefore a human being can never
be allowed to be the means by which a goal or
purpose is achieved
• Humans are self-conscious and aware, and
therefore should never become the pawn in
someone else’s decisions/wants
 Against Utilitarianism
• “the suffering of an individual person
could never be justified because a
greater number of people benefit.
• As long as a person can justify their
actions rationally, and can
universalize the maxim that can be
derived from an act, Kant judges the
act to be right
 Counter Argument
• A moral system that takes no account
of the consequences of an act,
remaining inflexible in the face of
whatever situation that comes along,
is unrealistic and divorced from reality.

Thanks for listening :)