Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
FREE AGENCY
Human beings are also free agents, that is, we have free will, or can freely choose between options, including moral options. That is, we can freely choose to do right or wrong. Because of our rationality, we can understand the difference between right and wrong. And, because of our rationality, we can understand moral laws which it is our duty to accept as binding. Our freedom to choose means then that we are capable of freely acting on this knowledge. That is we can freely choose to do what is proper.
MORAL WORTH
For Kant, a person of moral worth does the right thing, and does so in spite of the influence of desire and appetite which may lead her to do the wrong thing. And, for Kant, moral worth is the most important attribute which a person can have. Moral worth is more important and more admirable than such talents of the mind as intelligence, wit, and judgment and is more important than such qualities of temperament as courage, resolution, and perseverance. For Kant, these gifts of nature - intelligence, courage, and so forth - may also become bad and mischievous if the will which is to make use of them is not good.
GOOD WILL I
As seen, Kant recognizes that such things as intelligence and talent are good and valuable, but he thinks that moral worth has absolute value, and is more important than anything else which we might admire in a person. We have also seen that, for Kant, we are obligated by reason to follow objective moral laws even though we may not do so because of the influence of subjective conditions, or desires and appetites, on the will. A persons will to do the right thing, the thing which reason can identify as the morally correct thing to do, is a good will, and one which does not is not thoroughly good.
GOOD WILL II
A person of moral worth is a person of good will in freely choosing to do the morally correct thing whether or not she is under the influence of desire to do otherwise. And Kant says that Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a Good Will. Again, things like intelligence, talent, courage, and diligence are good, but if they are not backed by good character or a good will, then they can be put to bad use by a bad person. For instance, Hitler.
GOOD WILL IV
For Kant, a good will is not good because of what it brings about or helps to bring about, but because it is good in itself. A good will, considered by itself as it is in itself, is much more admirable than anything which it brings about. For instance, the good will which brings about happiness is much more deserving of respect than is the happiness which it produces.
GOOD WILL V
Even if a good will accomplishes nothing, it is still to be admired as something which has its whole value in itself. So whether a good will is useful in producing results or not, it is still of the utmost goodness in itself. The value of a good will then lies entirely in itself and not in what it produces.
GOOD WILL VI
For Kant, a good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, but is good in itself. Because the value of a good will lies entirely within itself, it is still good whether it results in anything which is either a good or a bad effect of it. The good will then has its whole value in itself, and its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither add to nor take away anything from this value.
MORAL MOTIVES
For Kant it is the moral person who is to be respected and revered. However, you are not an intrinsically moral person if, although you do the right thing, you do so for the wrong reason. For instance, you may keep a promise, not ought of knowing that it is the right thing to do, and acting on that knowledge, but because you perceive it to be to your benefit to do so. A moral person is motivated to do the right thing because he recognizes that it is the right thing to do, and so acts out of principle.
MORALITY IS UNIVERSAL
According to Kant, you dont act correctly for a subjective reason, such as pleasure or happiness, if you are a moral person. Rather, you act out of principle. This means recognizing an objective right which applies to everyone. What is morally right for one person is morally right for everyone, which is what is meant by saying that morality is universal.
DUTY I
That morality is universal and objective, rather than local, historical, and subjective, means that every rational agent has an obligation to do what is right. Thus it is your duty to do what is morally right as an objective matter. Kants ethics is called deontological. The word deontology comes from the Greek words deon for duty and logos for science. Thus deontology would be the science of duty.
DUTY II
A deontological theory of ethics stresses a persons duty to do the morally correct thing regardless of consequences. For deontological ethics, some acts are morally obligatory whether their consequences are good or bad for human beings. Because of lack of consideration of consequences, a deontological theory is nonconsequentialist. The deontologist will typically hold that his moral standards are higher than those of the consequentialist.
IMPERATIVES
An imperative is a command that I act in a certain fashion. Kant talks of two kinds of imperative, or two kinds of command (of reason), namely, hypothetical or categorical. A hypothetical imperative concerns an action which is good only as a means to something else. (His italics.) A categorical imperative concerns an action which is conceived of as good in itself. (His italics.)
HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE I
A hypothetical imperative is conditional. That is, it depends on certain things, and concerns what needs to be done in order to attain an objective. An imperative (a command of reason to act in a certain way) is hypothetical when it concerns an action which is good only as a means to something else.
HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE II
For instance, if you want to begin collecting art, then your ability to collect good art will be dependent or conditional on your ability to recognize good art. It is therefore imperative that you learn something about art so that you can tell the good from the bad. And the hypothetical command of reason in this case would be: If you want to build a good collection of art (the hypothetical) then learn about art (the imperative). Thus learning about art is good, but it is hypothetical because it is a means to something else, namely acquiring a good collection.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE I
Kant says that There is but one categorical imperative, namely this: Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law. (His italics.) (A maxim is a principle of conduct, such as keep your promises.) Kant also puts the categorical imperative this way: Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become a universal law of nature. (His italics.) He further states the categorical imperative when he says I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law. (His italics.)
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE II
A categorical imperative is unconditional categorical means absolute, unqualified, or unconditional. Kants categorical imperative is objectively necessary. It concerns the necessity of a correct moral action itself without reference to any consequence of the action.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE IV
We have seen that Kant thinks that the goodness of an act does not lie in its effects, but in the conception of the moral law according to which all rational agents should act, and so Kant is not a utilitarian or consequentialist. In addition, Kant says that the conception of the correct moral law will and must determine the will, or tell us what is the correct moral action, and he says that this correct moral law pertains to everyone. If we look to moral law for correct moral behavior, and not to the effects of actions, then we must ask what kind of law it is to which we are to look for morality. The answer, for Kant, is the categorical imperative, the general law from which, and according to which particular moral laws can be tested.
TEST 2: SUICIDE I
Is suicide okay for a depressed person if he or she reasons as follows? a) To stay alive would be far less good for me than bad. b) I love myself. c) Because I love myself I do not want to see myself suffer. d) Therefore, I ought to commit suicide to end my suffering.
Old Man in Sorrow (On the Threshold of Eternity) Vincent Van Gogh, 1890
TEST 2: SUICIDE II
For Kant, the crucial thing for the morality of suicide is whether or not this reasoning to the correctness of suicide to end suffering from self-love can become a universal law of nature. And he thinks that it cannot since, according to Kant, to commit suicide out of self-love is contradictory. It is contradictory because self-love is the very thing which motivates us to improve our lives. However, the removal of life is not improvement of life, and so self-love which provided these contradictory options cannot be made a universal law of nature, and consequently would be wholly inconsistent with the supreme principle of all duty.
Because persons are rational, they are ends in themselves for Kant, and not merely things which have relative value because they are only means to something else. The status of persons as rational agents who are ends in themselves gives rise to a second way of stating the categorical imperative: So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only.
MARIAS PROBLEM I
Maria von Herbert was a young woman who wrote to Kant for advice. Maria was in love with a young man who also loved her until she was honest with him about her having had a past sexual relationship with another man. Her honesty about the past affair causes the man to lose his love for her, and this in turn so depresses her that she considers suicide. In fact, the only thing which prevents her from committing suicide is Kants ethics, which prohibits suicide. The problem for Maria is that Kants philosophy does not help her in dealing with the pain which she now experiences.
MARIAS PROBLEM II
Maria writes again to Kant and says that she has lost her interest in life, which is pointless, that her soul is empty, that desire is gone, and she says that each day interests me only to the extent that it brings me closer to death. Maria also asks Kant to write back to her with specific details about how to deal with her problems, and also asks permission to visit him. For Langton, Marias life with its problems constitutes a profound challenge to Kants philosophy
QUESTIONS
Is it different now? Do women feel that they are sometimes or often treated as things, sex objects? Do men now look at women that way? How are women first looked at? Do women see themselves as the equals of men? Do men see women as equals?
Fred Sommers
For Sommers, any ethics which is based on the notions of duty and respect rather than on kindness and compassion is wrong and dangerous. The formal approach to ethics taken by Kant which is based on duty to rational agents leaves other being worthy of moral consideration outside of the moral community. And it leaves open the possibility that certain beings who we would normally consider to be part of the moral community, such as Jews, would not be considered persons, and therefore not morally protected.
Such an arbitrary drawing of moral boundaries cannot happen for any ethics which is based on benevolence and human compassion. And this is the case for the British tradition in ethics in which the focus is on basic sentience and feeling. Sommers concludes by saying that a moral theory that does not absolutely, directly, and foundationally anathematize cruelty must be ruled out of court. According to Sommers, the German rational tradition does not do this, and so is not only inferior to the British tradition, but is dangerous.