Kantian Ethics -theory of obligations -concerns itself with moral judgments of what we ought to do -we use our reason

and imagination to deliberate, we deliberate bec. we are free -act-centered, concerned with internal consistency of actions -looks at the maxims/principles and not consequences -good will -only intrinsic good -actions have a moral value when their motivations are rooted in duty and not by self-interest or immediate inclination -what anyone in the same circumstances ought to do bec. it is right -everyone must act accdg. to a rule that would be rational for anyone to in the same circumstances to follow, we must do what is right even if we dont feel like doing it -positive duties-those that we need to do -negative duties-those that we need to avoid -less ambitious because it does not have a maximizing principle -more ambitious in the sense that you always have to consider the rationality and autonomy of the individual and not be paternalistic -helps us to identify actions and institutional arrangements that are just or beneficent -puts great value on the rationality and autonomy of an individual in making decisions Rationality -Necessary Conditions of Rational Willing are Selfdevelopment and Mutual Aid

-W/o the devt. of human talents and powers and the resources of mutual cooperation, the wills effectiveness and freedom would be thwarted Autonomy -freedom, Being a law unto oneself, Being the author of the laws that bind one, self-governing reason -has authority over self that is grounded In the simple fact that she alone can initiate her actions -moral autonomy refers to the capacity to impose moral law on oneself 3 Right Makers: Categorical Imperative -Right Action: An act is right if and only if it follows a maxim that one can will to be universal law. -Imperatives that apply to all human beings by virtue of their being human. -There is a set of requirements that it is impossible to opt out of because it is impossible to opt out of being human. Test: World of Universalizable Maxims -Wrong Action: An act is wrong if and only if it follows a maxim that one cant will to become a universal law or if it follows a contradictory maxim. Contradictions: (Korsgaard) 1. Logical Contradiction Interpretation- saying of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect at the same time 2. Teleological Contradiction -simple view: action contradicts some natural purpose or function -complex view: action does not fit well w/ a systematic harmony of purposes w/c humans could consistently will 3. Practical Contradiction

-contradiction between the agents goal and the means w/ w/c she tries to accomplish the goal -involves frustrating the agents own goals through the means w/ w/c she chooses to accomplish the goal ex. false promises, killing a crying baby, bribing to get a business permit, Humanity Formula -Right Action: An act is right if and only if it treats humanity in oneself and in others always at the same times as an end and never merely as a means -Ends: Avoid using as mere means, Treating them as rational and autonomous beings with their own maxims -We use others as mere means if what we do reflect some maxim to w/c they could not in principle consent. -Humanity in the negative sense limits what I am morally permitted to do but in a positive sense, it is something that we can realize, develop, cultivate and fully actualize through our actions. -Humanity is a source of duty, I must develop my talents and work towards self-actualization. Kingdom of Ends -Our moral obligation is to act only on principles w/c could earn acceptance by a community of fully rational agents each of whom have an equal share in legislating these principles for their community Modified Golden Rule -Do unto others as you would rationally want them to do unto you. Paternalism -interference of the state or the individual with other persons, against their will, and justified by the claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm -fosters dependence

-humans should be as much in charge of their lives as possible Critiques: Paradox of Deontology -does not allow us to do an action against a rule even if doing the action reduces the number of violations of the rule -dilemma: -Either he fails to uphold values like life and autonomy bec. he is unwilling to violate Kantian prohibitions. -He is willing to violate Kantian prohibitions for the sake of many, w/c makes him a consequentialist. -It is not possible to arrive at any generalization about moral matters. All have to be looked at individually. ex. Killing and Letting Die -Generalizations about moral matters cant be used in any simple and mechanical way. Moral principles or rules may be important but they are of secondary importance -ability to know how to apply moral principles to particular cases is the most important thing -rely too much on principles and generalizations about moral matters -generalizations about moral matters dont work, one can follow good moral principles and still do bad things, one can follow the right principles and still be a bad person Maxims vs. Virtues -even universalizable maxims cant be applied thoughtlessly to cases -what matter is knowing how, why and when to apply them -virtue or good character, which is an ability to use moral principles properly, is more important than universalizable maxims Case: False Promise