May 30th Kant continued and Ross pluralistic deontology

How did Kant arrive at the Humanity test (end in itself test)
o The will is thought as a capcity to determine itself to acting in
conformity with the representation of certain laws.
So rational beings act from principles; set goals and conform to
them as in hypothetical imperatives.
Some principles can be given by reason alone.
Individuals possess subjective hypothetical imperatives which
they propose for themselves and pursue.
Not a lot of universal goals for all rational beings, might
be some coincidental overlap, but most are grounds of
hypothetical imperatives.
But a universal goal that applied to everyone could be a good
foundation for morality.
o Makes claim that every rational being exists as an end in itself, nor
merely as a means, and must be respected as a rational being.
o But why think rational beings exist in ends in themselves? How can
they be the basis of morality?
Rational nature exists in an end in itself because human beings
necessarily represent their existences in this way.
Can therefore derive moral laws from this principle.
o But why treat rational nature as an end in itself?
All objects of desire have conditional worth
(can be changed), can only be used for other
purposes (instrumental).
Thus worth of desires are conditional
(dependent upon me still wanting to go to
graduated school)
Whereas rational beings have unconditional
value, all have ability to make future
decisions.
Autonomy in decision making is what
is valuable in itself.
Perhaps also conscious goal setting/
Self-reflexivity.
o Strict duties for autonomous beings
Duty to maintain life in order to maintain ability to exercise
rational choice.
Duty to not make false promises, for agreer to false promises
cannot possibly consent to promisers way of behaving towards
him. Must respect agreers autonomy by transparency.
o Imperfect duties for autonomous beings
Not only can our action not conflict with humanity, our actions
must harmonize with it (as an end in itself).

If you dont treat the person merely as a means, and

dont really respect that the person is an end in
himself/herself, then a violation of an imperfect duty has
occurred.
Further, not developing ones talents, not exercising ones
autonomy, does not harmonize with humanity.
Not helping others is only a negative, not a positive, agreement
with humanity.
So not only avoid violating autonomy, but promote their
ability to make choices.

Oneil- Kantian approaches to some famine problems

Humanity test
Mere means
o Treat someone as mere means if you act in ways that they cannot in
principle consent to.
Justice is a perfect duty and beneficence is an imperfect duty (where
beneficence is selective; cant support everyone all the time).

Nozick- The rationality of side constraints

Considers treating people merely as a means is not a goal to be avoided, but

rather a constraint on permissible action.

Ross- what makes right acts right? Pluralistic deontologist/ intuitionist (selfevidence).

Endeavours to construct alternatives to both utilitarianism and Kantianism;

suggests both are too simple
o Utilitarianism ignores highly personal character of duty when it
considers only maximizing the good.
Factors of friendship, parenthood, etc. dont factor into utilitarian
calculus.
o Kantians cant produce good results when duties of perfect obligation
conflict with more serious imperfect obligations (like a promise that
conflicts with helping at the scene of an accident).
We have many relationships that are the sources of highly personal duties.
o Whereas utilitarians only consider one important relation: beneficiary
to benefactor.
Ross suggests we in promise/accident situations, we have two prima facie
duties, to help and to keep promises, where one must study the situation and
form a considered opinion, following the more important prima facie duty.
o Prima facie duty- conditional duty
Morality consists of many prima facie duties (reasons); each of
which is self-evident.

Duties 1. Promiser to promise (promise duty to meet someone at some

time, duty to single person, not to others.)
Wrongdoer wronged (duty of reparation)
2. Duties of gratitude
3. Duties of justice
4. Duties of beneficence
5. Duties of self-improvement
6. Duties to not harm others
o Theres nothing arbitrary about these duties, each rests of a definite
circumstancecannot be dismisses as morally insignificant.
o Intuition- known to be true without the need of further proof (a priori/
self-evident).
o Essentially, no formula for systematizing these duties.
Problems
o Inadequate in providing guidance.
But perhaps it can provide an answer for the right decision, but
only in retrospect. But this might break down into closet
utilitarianism.
o Principles of morality Ross enumerates are not self-evident; you can be
completely rational and deny them.
o

Each of these is somehow based on relationships one

finds oneself in.