Kantian Deontological Ethics Notes
Deontology
- Deo = one must
- Whether an action is right or wrong depends on the action being correct/incorrect in itself (principle), rather
the consequences of the action
- Two classes of theories:
- General duties to everyone: e.g., do not lie (negative) or help those in need (positive)
- Personal duties: e.g., duty of parents to care for children
- Deontology claims: we should be more concerned with our personal duties, not attempting to bring about
the most good.
- Deontologists agree there are times when we shouldn’t maximise happiness as it violates a duty (e.g., killing
to maximise happiness)
- We don’t have a duty to maximise happiness, rather a duty to do something for those in need
- Our duties are limited, so we have lots of freedom
- Actions can be distinguished (between right and wrong) based on intentions
- Deontology argues we can’t know the morality of an action until we know the intention
Kant’s account of good will and duty
- Kant believed all actions are based on maxims: personal principles which guide decisions (like intentions)
He also believed morality principles which apply to all and are the same for all
Thirdly, our ability to make choices/decisions is the will: this is rational and based on reason - as opposed to
only acting on instinct we act on choice
- Kant’s idea of morality: act on maxims which are practical and comply with universal law
Kant: good will
- Only “good will” is morally good without needing qualification
- Happiness is not always good: if someone gains happiness from killing others, their happiness is morally
wrong
Acting just to comply with duty and acting out of duty (you want to)
- A good will = motivated by duty. Acting out of duty for duty’s sake.
- For example, if a shopkeeper gives the right change and acts honestly just because it keeps his business, his
actions aren’t morally right. They are motivated by self-interest rather than out of the duty of honesty. It is
likely he would begin lying to profit himself and the business.
- The shopkeeper is simply acting in accordance with duty because he is obliged to, and it profits him
- Kant believes this applies to when people do actions to benefit others: if you help someone because you like
them Kant says this is right but not necessarily morally worthy (i.e., person may not have good will), since
you aren’t helping them because it is right to do so, rather merely because you like them
- By contrast, if you don’t like someone but help them because it’s morally right, then you do have good will
Some complications with the idea of good will
- Good will = acting out of duty because it’s one’s duty, but no clarification on what a good will is
- How do we know what a good will is because it’s not based on ends that are good (e.g., happiness)
- Some say good will is based on what maxims it adopts, but again, there is no way of knowing what maxims
should aim at
- Pursuing one’s duty because it is one’s duty does not make sense when we don’t know what the duties are/
should be: one falls into just pursuing duties because they feel they should rather than actually wanting to
do things like helping others or not stealing
- Kant’s response: maxims are subjective, but they are all principles, and principles are the same for everyone
and so therefore the concept of duty is for everyone. So, good will is motivated by the idea of a principle of
everyone
, The categorical Imperative – an objective command: 1st formulation (universalisation)
- Categorical Imperative: absolute and objective command regardless of our goals; they are never a means to
an end because what makes an action good is that it’s willed by good will.
- To have good will, one must act on maxims which everyone would act on
- A maxim is universalizable if you can rationally will that everyone ought to act on that maxim.
- This is a maxim, and doesn’t specify an end goal, rather mentions the idea of a principle for everyone
- E.g., if you want to make a promise with no intention of keeping it, it is wrong (if everyone acted on this
maxim), because no one would trust the false promises and so you cannot make the promise
Hypothetical Imperative
- A rule about what one should do based on the assumption of an end goal (consequentialist)
- They can explicitly or implicitly state the end goal
- People should do things because it helps them reach their end goal
- Willing the ends entails willing the means (you are actively prepared to do the necessary means to achieve
the ends)
- Avoiding the hypothetical imperative: simply giving up the assumed desire or goal (e.g., no longer will to
want to go to the football match)
- However, this cannot be true for morality (according to Kant): they are your moral duty regardless of what
you want because you are rational. All of this derives from universalisation.
Contradiction in will & conception
Contradiction in conception: if everyone were to act on the maxim it is self-contradictory. E.g., if you steal from a
shop because you feel its necessary, this would be universalised to mean everyone must steal. This is contradictory
because if everyone stole from others, the idea of owning things would disappear. Therefore, the maxim becomes
never steal (perfect duty - negative)
Contradiction in will: One which is not self-contradictory but would not work for society because people could not
rationally will it (NOT because it would have bad consequences). It wouldn’t work in society because it stops people
from being able to will their means (which leads to willing the ends). For example, not helping other could not be
universalised because in some situations one requires the help of others to will their means, so the maxim becomes
always help those in need (imperfect duty – positive).
Morality & Reason
- Reason determines what our duties are and gives us the means to discover them. Only rational beings can be
moral, according to Kant
2nd Formulation of Categorical Imperative: Humans as ends
- The value of actions depends on their ends, which is humanity according to Kant. If one desires many things,
various things in the world are valuable to them because they adopt these things as a will (will the means to
will the ends)
- Value is subjective, but this does not apply to humans, all humans are objectively equally valuable
- Therefore, value is not determined by use to other humans, Kant states all humans deserve dignity and
respect because of their rational will. They are fully autonomous.
- So, since humans are ends, we cannot treat them as means only. We can use them as a means but also
respect them as ends. Wrong to treat people in a way that they do not consent to, because their autonomy
is undermined.
- Hence firstly, one must always allow others to make informed decisions when gaining something from them
(doesn’t only treat them as means), shows respect
- Secondly, allowing people to have their own ends (should be respected solely because they were rational
enough to make the decision)
- Thirdly, we should help others (as an end for ourselves)
Strengths of Kantian ethics
