Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Kantian Ethics

This ethical theory, developed by Immanuel Kant, is a normative, deontological theory that is absolutist and a priori Kant believed that human beings were blessed with the idea of rationality and reason, unlike animals who just have simple instinctive desires, we can use our reason to find the best outcome of an action However we can also behave like animals sometimes and let our desires take over us, this is known as the hypothetical imperative Kant believed that Gods and Angels are the only creatures who solely use their reasons and block out all forms of animalistic desires Kant believed a person could only be morally good if they exercised their pure reason, since when we exercise our pure reason, we are free from human desires and instincts, and so therefore we are truly autonomous Reason allows us to be moral because it is disinterested in other motives, it is not driven by desires, needs or wants Kant believed that as soon as we become under the control of others, such as God, or society, or a group of peers, then we lose our autonomy and can no longer be morally good, for this reason he adopted the slogan dare to reason Kant believed that in order to be morally good, we must act out of duty alone, and not do things to expect other rewards, actions can only be regarded as morally good when we use our reason to do them Kant also believed that the only intrinsically good thing in the world was the Good Will, someone is known to have good will when they are motivated by duty alone and not by other ulterior motives; It is impossible to conceive anything in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good except the good will Kant For Kant, the good will is an intrinsic good and it is always good, no matter the consequences of an action, so if a person is motivated by duty alone and carries out an action, it will always be good, even there are disastrous consequences Kant believed that even if the good will was combined with lots of other bad actions, it would still be considered morally good it would shine forth like a jewel, having full value in itself Kant Unlike other values, such as courage or politeness, which are extrinsic goods, the good will does not rely on the circumstance to be good, it is always good Kant believed that even if following our duty is not what we want to do, or that it may not even lead to the best consequences, we must always do it because it is morally good Although fulfilling your duty may sometimes be pleasurable (e.g. helping a beggar), this cannot be the reason that you have done your duty, you must act out of duty alone

According to Kant, we can know our duty through the categorical imperative, this applies to all of us universally just because we all have rational wills The opposite of this is the hypothetical imperative which is doing something for another reason apart from doing; Doing X because you want Y

The categorical imperative applies to all of unconditionally, it is not reliant on the goal we might have

You can only use the categorical imperative if you are completely autonomous and free from desires, wants and needs The categorical imperative is made up of 3 formulations which all essentially mean the same thing however, they have slightly different definitions and meanings:

1. The formula of law This states that all your actions must be universalizable; Always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as universal law for all humanity Kant. For example, if you decide that lying is wrong, then you must conclude that everyone should be able to lie, this obviously does not work and so lying is a morally wrong action 2. The formula of ends This means thats you must always treat people as an ends, and never as a means to an end; Always treat human beings as an end in themselves, never simply as a means to an end, this is based on the idea that all human beings are rational and autonomous and so deserve a certain level of respect, you must never use human beings as a means for getting something else, we must treat others as equals 3. The formula of autonomy This states that you must imagine you are a law-maker in a democratic state, you must only act on moral laws that would be acceptable in this community; So act as if you were a law-maker in a kingdom of ends, this ties in with the idea that modern democratic societies are based on Kantian ethics; Kantian ethics is the ethics of democracy James Rachels

For an ethical theory to be regarded as useful, it must provide a reason for a person to act morally good, in the case of Kantian ethics, this is known as the summum bonum Because Kant does not allow happiness to be the motive of fulfilling your duty, he argues that in the afterlife, we reach a place called the summum bonum where virtuous behaviour deserves happiness Because in the real world, following your duty does not always lead to happiness, the summum bonum is the place when virtue meets happiness; Where rational beings are worthy of happiness Kant This will tie onto the idea of Kantian belief in God later

Kant claimed there was a contradiction in will, this is a simple test we can do to determine if an action is morally good or bad If universalizing the action would produce a state of affairs that is utterly objectionable to all rational people, then the action is generally regarded as morally bad

Strengths
It is a very clear and easy to follow, it is universal in the sense that people who are ideally rational will all legislate the same principles, it is also applicable to modern day life It is very consistent and rarely produces confusion, everyone who is rational Is treated as an autonomous law maker, no exceptions, and it blocks out the problem of natural human nature to put ourselves first; A person cant regard himself as special from a moral point of view James Rachels It is very fair and equal, giving all humans the same dignity, all human beings have the same value and we are not allowed to use them as a means to an end; Humans have intrinsic worth and dignity, because they are rational agents that is, free James Rachels

Weaknesses
It is too rigid and inflexible to be used today, and it may lead to disastrous consequences, the example of the enquiring murderer comes to mind, about a murderer who comes to your house looking for your mother to kill, you must tell him the truth according to Kant because that is the right thing to do It is too abstract and not easily applied to modern day situations, although it tells you that following your duty is good, it is too broad and does not necessarily applied to modern day situations , you can use the universalizability principle to justify basically anything if you get really specific It promotes capital punishment and other harsh forms of punishment; An evil deed draws punishment on itself- Kant, this is not really practical in modern day life and democratic societies, it doesnt promote the Christian value of turn the other cheek It can be regarded as spceist, because, as humans, we are the only animals that are rational and so we above animals; As far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Animals are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man Kant Kant does not give an explanation for when to oughts conflict, which is more important, to not lie? Or to not kill? There are certain situations where these can conflict and you run into a bit of an issue

Anda mungkin juga menyukai