DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
- root of Kant' moral theory
- tells us what we ought to do and not to do
> if we have the duty to tell the truth, we have the duty not to lie
> lying is immoral because telling the truth is moral
Duty
- the CI answers the question, "Why are we supposed to do that duty?"
- duties that we have as individual rational beings is a duty that everyone has
- it is not imposed by an external power
- these are the things that we ought to discover by the faculties of our reason
- duty based ethics is not based on the idea that it will pay you off if you behave this
way
Formulation 1
- act only on that maxim
- we should only engage in actions
- if it is the right thing to do, everybody ought to do it
- this is conceivable but there things that cannot be willed, you will be willing things
that go against either what is in your interest or what you want to be
- What is Kant not saying?
> everybody does actually follow law
> can't have conflicted will
- you know that a person is acting on his duty when he goes against his
inclinations
> would produce good effects
> if can't be universalised, immoral
Formulation 2
- act in such a way that you always treat humanity
- possible to treat a person both as a means and an end
- there are things that are not okay just because they don't hurt other people
- distinction between merely subjective ends and objective ends
- merely subjective ends: ends that we settle upon and guides our practical
reasoning, choices but with reference only to our own desires and inclinations.
These inclinations does not hold for everyone.
> Not everyone likes coffee in the morning
> coffee could be a means to an end= to grade in the morning

- objective ends: what a rational being ought to aim for

> preservation of innocent life.
> not everyone says that they want to preserve innocent lives, but it is what
they ought to aim for
because it is detrimental to other persons and yourself
- Strict duty- not conflict with humanity, whether or not it would treat humanity as an
end or means
To self:
> is it permissible to shorten life to avoid enduring pain?
> treating getting away from an end is the end, his uses his capacity and
forecasting the future, his humanity as a means.
To other people:
> not respecting their capacity to set an end for themselves
- Meritorious duty- harmonise with humanity
> it's okay if you don't do them
> you don't have to give to charity, but it would be good to do it
To self:
> should I develop my talents, capacities, intellects, etc?
> we can gain greater progress, make it more perfect
> perfection is relative. ex. what makes a coffee a coffee? What makes it
perfect
> if we neglect the opportunities to develop ourself may not be
incompatible with humanity per se, but it doesn't harmonise with itself.
> So far lies in your power, to further someone's end (subjective end)