Anda di halaman 1dari 9

28/04/2016

KANTIANETHICS

KANTIANETHICS

GermanphilosopherImmanuelKant(17241804)wasanopponentofutilitarianism.
Leading20thcenturyproponentofKantianism:ProfessorElizabethAnscombe(1920
2001).

BasicSummary:Kant,unlikeMill,believedthatcertaintypesofactions(includingmurder,
theft,andlying)wereabsolutelyprohibited,evenincaseswheretheactionwouldbring
aboutmorehappinessthanthealternative.ForKantians,therearetwoquestionsthatwe
mustaskourselveswheneverwedecidetoact:(i)CanIrationallywillthateveryoneactasI
proposetoact?Iftheanswerisno,thenwemustnotperformtheaction.(ii)Doesmy
actionrespectthegoalsofhumanbeingsratherthanmerelyusingthemformyown
purposes?Again,iftheanswerisno,thenwemustnotperformtheaction.(Kantbelieved
thatthesequestionswereequivalent).

Kantstheoryisanexampleofadeontologicalmoraltheoryaccordingtothesetheories,
therightnessorwrongnessofactionsdoesnotdependontheirconsequencesbuton
whethertheyfulfillourduty.

Kantbelievedthattherewasasupremeprincipleofmorality,andhereferredtoitasThe
CategoricalImperative.TheCIdetermineswhatourmoraldutiesare.

thefollowingisanexerptfromthenotesofProfessorEricBarnes...

Moralityandimperatives:Whatdoesitmeanforone'sdutytobedeterminedbythe
categoricalimperative?
Whatisanimperative?Animperativeisacommand.So,"Payyourtaxes!"isan
imperative,asare"Stopkickingme!"and"Don'tkillanimals!"
HypotheticalImperatives:theseimperativescommandconditionallyonyourhaving
arelevantdesire.E.g.Ifyouwanttogotomedicalschool,studybiologyincollege.
Ifyoudontwanttogotomedicalschool,thiscommanddoesntapplytoyou.
Anotherexample,yourfathersays,"ifyouarehungry,thengoeatsomething!"ifyou
aren'thungry,thenyouarefreetoignorethecommand.
CategoricalImperatives:Thesecommandunconditionally.E.g.Dontcheaton
yourtaxes.Evenifyouwanttocheatanddoingsowouldserveyourinterests,you
maynotcheat.

Whatistheconnectionbetweenmoralityandcategoricalimperatives?Morality
mustbebasedonthecategoricalimperativebecausemoralityissuchthatyouare
commandedbyit,andissuchthatyoucannotoptoutofitorclaimthatitdoesnot
applytoyou.
Howdoesthecategoricalimperativework?Thecategoricalimperativehasthree
differentformulations.Thatistosay,therearethreedifferentwaysofsayingwhatitis.
Kantclaimsthatallthreedoinfactsaythesamething,butitiscurrentlydisputed
whetherthisistrue.Thesecondformulationistheeasiesttounderstand,butthefirst
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm

1/9

28/04/2016

KANTIANETHICS

oneismostclearlyacategoricalimperative.Hereisthefirstformulation.
1)Firstformulation(TheFormulaofUniversalLaw):"Actonlyonthatmaximthrough
whichyoucanatthesametimewillthatitshouldbecomeauniversallaw[ofnature]."
a)Whatisamaxim?Amaximistheruleorprincipleonwhichyouact.For
example,Imightmakeitmymaximtogiveatleastasmuchtocharityeach
yearasIspendoneatingout,orImightmakeitmymaximonlytodowhatwill
benefitsomememberofmyfamily.
b)Basicidea:Thecommandstates,crudely,thatyouarenotallowedtodo
anythingyourselfthatyouwouldnotbewillingtoalloweveryoneelsetodoas
well.Youarenotallowedtomakeexceptionsforyourself.Forexample,ifyou
expectotherpeopletokeeptheirpromises,thenyouareobligatedtokeep
yourownpromises.
c)Moredetail:Moreaccurately,itcommandsthateverymaximyouacton
mustbesuchthatyouarewillingtomakeitthecasethateveryonealwaysact
onthatmaximwheninasimilarsituation.Forexample,ifIwantedtolietoget
somethingIwanted,Iwouldhavetobewillingtomakeitthecasethat
everyonealwaysliedtogetwhattheywantedbutifthisweretohappenno
onewouldeverbelieveyou,sotheliewouldnotworkandyouwouldnotget
whatyouwanted.So,ifyouwilledthatsuchamaxim(oflying)shouldbecome
auniversallaw,thenyouwouldthwartyourgoalthus,itisimpermissibleto
lie,accordingtothecategoricalimperative.Itisimpermissiblebecausethe
onlywaytolieistomakeanexceptionforyourself.

KantonMoralWorth

TheMoralWorthofPersons:Kantalsohassomethingtosayaboutwhatmakessomeone
agoodperson.KeepinmindthatKantintendsthistogoalongwiththerestofhistheory,
andwhatone'sdutyiswouldbedeterminedbythecategoricalimperative.However,one
cantreatthisasaseparatetheorytosomeextent,andconsiderthatone'sdutyis
determinedbysomeotherstandard.Keepinmindthatwhatissaidbelowhastodowith
howoneevaluatespeople,notactions.Aperson'sactionsarerightorwrong,apersonis
morallyworthyorlacksmoralworth(i.e.,ismorallybase).Aperson'sactionsdetermineher
moralworth,butthereismoretothisthanmerelyseeingiftheactionsarerightorwrong.
a)Backgroundconcepts:Thischartshouldhelpexplainthebasics.

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm

2/9

28/04/2016

KANTIANETHICS

b)Thebasicidea:Kantarguesthatapersonisgoodorbaddependingonthe
motivationoftheiractionsandnotonthegoodnessoftheconsequencesofthose
actions.By"motivation"Imeanwhatcausedyoutodotheaction(i.e.,yourreason
fordoingit).Kantarguesthatonecanhavemoralworth(i.e.,beagoodperson)only
ifoneismotivatedbymorality.Inotherwords,ifaperson'semotionsordesires
causethemtodosomething,thenthatactioncannotgivethemmoralworth.This
maysoundodd,butthereisgoodreasontoagreewithKant.
c)Whymotivationiswhatmatters:ImaginethatIwinthelotteryandI'mwondering
whattodowiththemoney.Ilookaroundforwhatwouldbethemostfuntodowithit:
buyayacht,travelinfirstclassaroundtheworld,getthatkneeoperation,etc..I
decidethatwhatwouldbereallyfunistogivethemoneytocharityandtoenjoythat
specialfeelingyougetfrommakingpeoplehappy,soIgiveallmylotterymoney
away.AccordingtoKant,IamnotamorallyworthypersonbecauseIdidthis,afterall
IjustdidwhateverIthoughtwouldbethemostfunandthereisnothingadmirable
aboutsuchaselfishpursuit.ItwasjustluckyforthosecharitiesthatIthoughtgiving
awaymoneywasfun.Moralworthonlycomeswhenyoudosomethingbecauseyou
knowthatitisyourdutyandyouwoulddoitregardlessofwhetheryoulikedit.
d)Whyconsequencesdon'tmatter:AreasonwhyKantisnotconcernedwith
consequencescanbeseeninthefollowingexample.Imaginetwopeopleout
togetherdrinkingatabarlateonenight,andeachofthemdecidestodrivehomevery
drunk.Theydriveindifferentdirectionsthroughthemiddleofnowhere.Oneofthem
encountersnooneontheroad,andsogetshomewithoutincidentregardlessof
totallyrecklessdriving.Theotherdrunkisnotsoluckyandencounterssomeone
walkingatnight,andkillsthepedestrianwiththecar.Kantwouldarguethatbasedon
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm

3/9

28/04/2016

KANTIANETHICS

theseactionsbothdrunksareequallybad,andthefactthatonepersongotlucky
doesnotmakethemanybetterthantheotherdrunk.Afterall,theybothmadethe
samechoices,andnothingwithineitherone'scontrolhadanythingtodowiththe
differenceintheiractions.Thesamereasoningappliestopeoplewhoactfortheright
reasons.Ifbothpeopleactfortherightreasons,thenbotharemorallyworthy,evenif
theactionsofoneofthemhappentoleadtobadconsequencesbybadluck.
e)Thewronginterpretation:Considerthecasedescribedaboveaboutthelottery
winnergivingtocharity.Imaginethathegivestoacharityandheintendstosave
hundredsofstarvingchildreninaremotevillage.Thefoodarrivesinthevillagebuta
groupofrebelsfindsoutthattheyhavefood,andtheycometostealthefoodandend
upkillingallthechildreninthevillageandtheadultstoo.Theintendedconsequence
offeedingstarvingchildrenwasgood,andtheactualconsequenceswerebad.Kant
isnotsayingthatweshouldlookattheintendedconsequencesinordertomakea
moralevaluation.Kantisclaimingthatregardlessofintendedoractual
consequences,moralworthisproperlyassessedbylookingatthemotivationofthe
action,whichmaybeselfisheveniftheintendedconsequencesaregood.
f)Kantdoesnotforbidhappiness:Acarefulreadermaynoticethatintheexample
aboveoneoftheselfishperson'sintendedconsequencesistomakehimselfhappy,
andsoitmightseemtobethatintendedconsequencesdomatter.Onemightthink
Kantisclaimingthatifoneofmyintentionsistomakemyselfhappy,thatmyactionis
notworthy.Thisisamistake.Theconsequenceofmakingmyselfhappyisagood
consequence,evenaccordingtoKant.Kantclearlythinksthatpeoplebeinghappyis
agoodthing.Thereisnothingwrongwithdoingsomethingwithanintended
consequenceofmakingyourselfhappy,thatisnotselfishness.Youcangetmoral
worthdoingthingsthatyouenjoy,butthereasonyouaredoingthemcannotbethat
youenjoythem,thereasonmustbethattheyarerequiredbyduty.Also,thereisa
tendencytothinkthatKantsaysitisalwayswrongtodosomethingthatjustcauses
yourownhappiness,likebuyinganicecreamcone.Thisisnotthecase.Kantthinks
thatyououghttodothingstomakeyourselfhappyaslongasyoumakesurethat
theyarenotimmoral(i.e.,contrarytoduty),andthatyouwouldrefrainfromdoing
themiftheywereimmoral.Gettingicecreamisnotimmoral,andsoyoucango
aheadanddoit.Doingitwillnotmakeyouamorallyworthyperson,butitwon'tmake
youabadpersoneither.Manyactionswhicharepermissiblebutnotrequiredbyduty
areneutralinthisway.
g)Summary:AccordingtoKantagoodpersonissomeonewhoalwaysdoestheir
dutybecauseitistheirduty.Itisfineiftheyenjoydoingit,butitmustbethecasethat
theywoulddoiteveniftheydidnotenjoyit.Theoverallthemeisthattobeagood
personyoumustbegoodforgoodnesssake.
endofexcerpt...

AProblemforKantsTheory
Kantsviewisthatlyingisalwayswrong.Hisargumentforthisissummarizedby
JamesRachelsasfollows:

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm

4/9

28/04/2016

KANTIANETHICS

(1)Weshoulddoonlythoseactionsthatconformtorulesthatwecouldwillbeadopted
universally.

(2)Ifweweretolie,wewouldbefollowingtheruleItispermissibletolie.

(3)Thisrulecouldnotbeadopteduniversally,becauseitwouldbeselfdefeating:people
wouldstopbelievingoneanother,andthenitwoulddonogoodtolie.

(4)Therefore,weshouldnotlie.

TheproblemwiththisargumentisthatwecanliewithoutsimplyfollowingtheruleIt
ispermissibletolie.Instead,wemightbefollowingarulethatpertainsonlytospecific
circumstances,likeItispermissibletoliewhendoingsowillsavealife.Thisrulecanbe
madeauniversallawwithoutcontradiction.Afterall,itisnotasthoughpeoplewouldstop
believingeachothersimplybecauseitisknownthatpeopleliewhendoingsowillsave
lives.Foronething,thatsituationrarelycomesuppeoplecouldstillbetellingthetruth
almostallofthetime.Eventhetakingofhumanlifecouldbejustifiedundercertain
circumstances.Takeselfdefense,forexample.Thereappearstobenothingproblematic
withtheruleItispermissibletokillwhendoingsoistheonlyavailablemeansofdefense
againstanattacker.

ItisnotnecessarytointerpretKantstheoryasprohibitinglyinginallcircumstances
(asKantdid).Maxims(andtheuniversallawsthatresultfromthem)canbespecifiedina
waythatreflectsalloftherelevantfeaturesofthesituation.Considerthecaseofthe
InquiringMurderer(asdescribedinthetext).Supposethatyouareinthatsituationandyou
lietothemurderer.InsteadofunderstandingtheuniversalizedmaximasEveryoneAlways
lieswecanunderstanditasEveryonealwaysliesinordertoprotectinnocentsfrom
stalkers.Thismaximseemstopassthetestofthecategoricalimperative.Unfortunately,
complicatedmaximsmakeKantstheorybecomesmoredifficulttounderstandandapply.

ProcedurefordeterminingwhetheraproposedactionviolatesCI1:

(1)Formulatethemaxim:
Iamtodoxincircumstancesyinordertobringaboutz.

Example:
IamtolieonaloanapplicationwhenIaminseverefinancialdifficultyandthereisnoother
waytoobtainfunds,inordertoeasethestrainonmyfinances.

(2)Generalizethemaximintoalawofnature:
Everyonealwaysdoesxincircumstancesyinordertobringaboutz.

Everyonealwaysliesonaloanapplicationwhenheisinseverefinancialdifficultyandthere
isnootherwaytoobtainfunds,inordertoeasethestrainonhisfinances.

(3)Figureouttheperturbedsocialworld(PSW),thatis,whattheworldwouldbelike
ifthislawofnaturewereaddedtoexistinglawsofnatureandthingshadachanceto
reachequilibrium.Note:assumethataftertheadjustmenttoequilibriumthenewlawis
commonknowledgeeveryoneknowsthatitistrue,everyoneknowsthateveryoneknows,
etc.

Twoquestions:
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm

5/9

28/04/2016

KANTIANETHICS

Q1:CouldIrationallyactonmymaximinthePSW?
ThisistheContradictioninConceptionTest

Q2:CouldIrationallychoosethePSWasoneinwhichIwouldbeamember?
ThisistheContradictionintheWillTest

TheKantianevaluationruleisthis:wemustbeabletoansweryestobothquestionsforthe
maximtobeacceptable.Ifwegetanoanswertoeither,wemustrejectthemaximandtryto
findanotheroneonwhichtoact.

Thedeceitfulpromise(Kants2ndexample)

Thisistheexamplewehavebeenusinginspellingouttheprocedure.Themaxim
failsbecauseImustanswer"no"tothefirstquestion:Icouldnotrationallyactonthe
maximinthePSW.TherearetworeasonsKantstatesforthis:(1)promisingand(2)
theendtobeattainedbyitwouldbeimpossible,sincenoonewouldbelievewhat
waspromisedhimbutwouldlaughatallsuchutterancesasbeingvainpretenses.
Lyingonaloanapplicationwouldnotgetusanywhereinaworldwhereeveryone
alwaysliedwhenundersimilarcircumstances.

Thesecondpartofthetestisthe"contradictioninthewilltest."Itcatchesthose
maximswhoseexistenceasauniversallawofnatureisconceivablewithout
contradiction,butwhichcannotbewilledtobesuchwithoutcontradiction.Thenext
exampleissupposedtoillustrateafailureofthistest.

Indifferencetotheneedsofothers(Kants4thexample)

Herethemaximissomethinglikethefollowing:

Inordertoadvancemyowninterests,Iwillnotdoanythingtohelpothersinneed
unlessIhavesomethingtogainfromdoingso.

ThePSWwillcontainalawofnatureoftheform:

Toadvancehisowninterests,everyonealwaysrefrainsfromhelpingothersinneed
unlesshehassomethingtogainfromdoingso.

NowKantwouldsaythatthereisnoprobleminconceivingsuchaPSW(infact,those
ofacynicalbentmightthinkthatthePSWisnodifferentfromtheexistingworld).
Applyingthefirstquestionoftheprocedure,weseethatwecannotanswernotothe
firstquestion:itwouldberationalinthePSWtofollowthemaximifeveryoneelseis
doingthesame,becauseinthatworldeveryoneisindifferenttotheneedsofothers,
sothebestwayforyoutoadvanceyourinterestsistobelikewiseindifferent(foryou
willnotgainanythingthroughreciprocityofothersbydepartingfromthemaxim).

However,accordingtoKantthesecondpartofthetestfails:Icouldnotrationally
choosethePSW,because"awillwhichresolveditselfinthiswaywouldcontradict
itself,inasmuchascasesmightoftenariseinwhichonewouldhaveneedofthelove
andsympathyofothersandinwhichhewoulddeprivehimself,bysuchalawof
naturespringingfromhisownwill,ofallhopeoftheaidhewantsforhimself(423)."
Thatis,accordingtoKantitisnotrationaltochooseaworldinwhichyouwouldnot
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm

6/9

28/04/2016

KANTIANETHICS

behelpedifyouwereinneedandnoonewasinapositiontogainbyhelpingyou.
]

PerfectDutiesandImperfectDuties

IfamaximflunksQ1(seeabove)thenwehaveaperfectdutytorefrainfromactingonthat
maxim.

IfamaximflunksQ2(seeabove)butnotQ1,thenwehaveanimperfectdutytorefrain
fromactingonthatmaxim.

OurPerfectduties(dutiesofjustice)arenegativeinthattheyrequirethatwenever
performcertaintypesofactions,andcanonlybefulfilledinveryspecificways.

OurImperfectduties(dutiesofvirtue)arepositiveinthattheyrequirethatwe
sometimesperformcertaintypesofactions.

Illustration:Wehaveaperfectdutynottomurder.Thismeansthatwemustnevermurder
underanycircumstances.Wehaveanimperfectdutytohelptheneedy.Thismeansthat
weshoulddosoonoccasion,wherethisdoesnotconflictwithourperfectduties.

Examples:

DutiesPerfectImperfect

ToOtherstelltruthassistothersinneed
dontbreakpromiseshelpothersachievegoals
dontsteal,murder,enslave

ToSelfnosuicideor
developtalents
otherformsofselfdestruction

AccordingtoKant,perfectduties(dutiesofjustice)canappropriatelybeenforcedbymeans
ofthepublic,juridicaluseofcoercion,andtheremainderareimperfectduties(dutiesof
virtue),whicharefitsubjectsformoralassessmentbutnotcoercion.(RecallthatJan
NarvesonfollowsthisdistinctioninhispaperFeedingtheHungry)

Sensat
[

AcasestudyforcomparingKantstheorywithUtilitarianism

Martha,asahomeservicemedicalcarevolunteer,hascaredforGeorgethroughthefinal
weeksofhisfatalillness.Justbeforehedied,GeorgetoldMarthawherealargesumof
moneyhehadaccumulatedwasstored.Heaskedhertoseethatthemoneywasgivento
theSocietyforProtectionagainstAlienControloftheEarth(SPACE).SinceGeorge'sillness
didnotaffecthismentalcapacity,sheagreed.Butnowthathehasdied,sheisconsidering
usingthemoneytosupporttheactivitiesofthelocalHungerTaskForce,anorganizationthat
providesdonatedfoodtothosewhoneedit.Georgehasnosurvivingfriendsorrelatives,
andnooneelseknowsaboutthemoney.Heleftnowrittenwill.

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm

7/9

28/04/2016

KANTIANETHICS

Kantiananalysis

TorunthiscasethroughtheCIprocedure,wefirstneedtoidentifyMartha'smaxim.Todo
this,welookatthedescriptionofthesituationandseeifwecandeterminewhichsortof
principleMarthawouldsincerelyformulateasjustificationofheraction.Recallthatall
maximscanbeputintotheform:

Iamtodoxincircumstancesyinordertopromotez

Sowecandeterminethemaximbyspecifyingwhatshouldgoinforx,yandz.Thefollowing
substitutionsseemplausible:

x=breakadeathbedpromise
y=whendoingsowillallowmetodomuchmoregoodforhumanity
z=thegoalofincreasinghumanwelfare

SothethreestepsoftheCIprocedurewilllooklikethis:

Formulatethemaxim:Iamtobreakadeathbedpromisewhendoingsowillallowmetodo
muchmoregoodforhumanity,inordertopromotethegoalofincreasinghumanwelfare.

Generalizethemaximintoalawofnature:Everyonealwaysbreaksdeathbedpromises
whendoingsoallowshimtodomuchmoregoodforhumanity,inordertopromotethegoal
ofincreasinghumanwelfare.

FigureoutthePSW:InthePSW,itwillbecommonknowledgethatpeoplebreakdeathbed
promiseswhenevertheythinktheycandomuchmoregoodforhumanity
Firstquestion:WoulditberationaltoadoptandactonmymaximinthePSW?No,because
inthePSWnoonewouldaskfordeathbedpromises,becauseeveryonewouldknowthat
theyarenotgenuinecommitments.Themaximwouldnotbeaneffectivepolicyfor
promotinghumanwelfare.

Sincetheanswertothefirstquestionis"No,"Marthashouldnotactonhermaxim,sinceit
failsthe"contradictioninconception"test.

Utilitariananalysis

Thestepshereareasfollows:
Specifytheoptions
Specifypossibleconsequencesforeachoption
Foreachoption,estimatetheprobabilityofeachofitsconsequences
Foreachoption,estimatethe"utility"ofeachofitsconsequences
Identifythebestprospect

ItseemsthattheoptionsMarthafacesarethese:
Keepthepromise
GivethemoneytotheHungerTaskForce

Thefollowingtablespecifiesprobabilitiesandutilitiesforeachconsequenceofeachoption:

Utility(impacton
Option
Consequences
Probability
humanwelfare)
SPACEgetsthemoneyandspendsiton
Keeppromise
Certainty Low
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm

8/9

28/04/2016

Givemoney
toHTF

KANTIANETHICS

itsownprograms
HTFusesmoneytofeedmanyhungry
people
Actionisdiscovered

High

Veryhigh

Low

Somewhatlower
than

Wecanusetheinformationinthistabletoidentifythebestprospect.Sincekeepingthe
promiseiscertaintohaveonlyasmallimpactonhumanwelfare,whereasgivingthemoney
toHTFisverylikelytohaveamuchbiggerimpact,withonlyasmallchanceofproducingan
outcomethatisonlysomewhatworsethanthecertainoutcomeofkeepingthepromise,
givingthemoneytoHTFisthebestprospect.Consequentlyitistheoptionthatutilitarianism
recommends.
]

RecallthatthereweretwoformulationsoftheCategoricalImperative:

FormulationI,theFormulaofUniversalLaw[CI1]:Actonlyonthatmaximthrough
whichyoucanatthesametimewillthatitshouldbecomeauniversallaw.

FormulationII,TheFormulaoftheEndinItself[CI2]:Soactastotreathumanity,
bothinyourownperson,andinthepersonofeveryother,alwaysatthesametimeas
anend,neversimplyasameans.

Sofar,wehavebeendiscussingCI1.Now,wewillbrieflyturnourattentiontoCI2.

Tousesomeoneasameremeansistoinvolvetheminaschemeofactiontowhichthey
couldnotinprincipleconsent.

Intypicaltransactions(e.g.theexchangeofmoneyforgoods)peopleuseeachotheras
meansbutnotasmeremeans.Eachpersonassumestheotherisactingoutofhisorher
ownmotivesandisnotjustathingtobemanipulated.

Butincasesofpromisebreaking,deception,andcoercion(tonameafew)peopleact
wronglyinusingeachotherasmeremeans.Forexample:ifGeorgemakesapromiseto
Joannewiththeintentionofbreakingit,andJoanneaccepts,thenJoannehasbeen
deceivedastoGeorgestruemaxim.Joannecannotinprincipleconsenttohisschemeof
actionsinceshedoesntevenknowwhatitis.Sheisbeingusedasameremeans.
Likewise,onecannotconsenttocoercionbecauseconsentrequireshavingachoice.

Totreatsomeoneasanendrequiresthatonenotusehimorherasmeremeans.Beyond
that,wehaveadutytopromoteothersplansandmaximsbysharingsomeoftheirends,
thusrespectingothersendsinthefullestway.Butpeopleswantsaremany,diverseand
oftenincompatible,sowecannothelpeveryone.

Thus,wehavetwomaindutiesthatderivefromtheCI2:
(1)theperfectdutytoactonnomaximsthatusepeopleasmeremeans.
(2)theimperfectdutytoactonsomemaximsthatfosterpeoplesends.

KantbelievedCI1andCI2tobeequivalenthethoughtthateachimpliedexactlythesame
duties.Wewontconcernourselveswithwhetherthisistrue(thoughitisplausiblethatthey
wouldhavethesameimplicationsforthecaseswehaveexamined).

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm

9/9

Anda mungkin juga menyukai