Duty

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant
17241804

Pietism
Pietism, a reform movement within
German Lutheranism stressed inner
religious conversion and upright conduct
over doctrinal exactness.
Kant's parents were Pietists and he
retained an appreciation for the inner
moral conscientiousness that Pietism
sought to foster as fundamental to
religion, even as he reacted strongly
against the external ritual and devotional
practices of Christian public worship and
prayer that Pietism promoted.

Immanuel Kant
17241804

Rationalism
Rationalism is any view appealing to reason
as a source of knowledge or justification. In
more technical terms, it is a method or a
theory in which the criterion of the truth is
not sensory but intellectual and deductive
reasoning. Kant was a rationalist.

Immanuel Kant
17241804

Enlightenment
Enlightenment is man's emergence from
his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is
the inability to use one's understanding
without guidance from another. This
immaturity is self-imposed when its cause
lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack
of resolve and courage to use it without
guidance from another.
Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have
courage to use your own understanding!"-that is the motto of enlightenment.

Kant and Revolution

As a supporter of the Enlightenment,

Kant believed in freedom:
From unthinking tradition
From despotic political rule
From control by feeling and emotion

HOWEVER, he was shocked when the

French Revolution whose principles of
liberty, equality, fraternity he endorsed
turned to a Reign of Terror
Kants ethics provides a secular, rational
basis for morality in an age of
revolutionary change

Kants Ethics of Duty

3 insights form the basis for Kants
Ethical Theory
An action has moral worth if it is done
for the sake of duty. (DUTY)
An action is morally correct if its
maxim can be willed as a universal
law. (UNIVERSALIZABILITY)
We should always treat humanity,
whether in ourselves or other people,
as an end in itself and never merely
as means to an end. (RESPECT)

The Ethics of Duty

Acting for the sake of duty is:
Acting without self-interest
Acting without concern for
consequences
Acting without inclination
[downplays the role of
compassion]

Immanuel Kant: a matter of

"duty"
Before Kant ethics focused on the
concept of "the good"
Two questions were asked:
What is "the good"?
How do we attain it?
There was no disagreement on the
above two points.
The only puzzle was why didn't
some people aim at the good.
[Plato said "ignorance". Aristotle
said weakness of will.]

How Christianity changed

ethics

In the Christian view

to act morally a person must see the
act is right (i.e., it is commanded by
GOD) and must do the act because
they see it is right.
For Kant Reason, not God, is the
source of the moral law. We can
rephrase the above as:
to act morally a person must see the
act is right (i.e., it is commanded by
REASON) and must do the act
because they see it is right.

The "good will" and duty...

Kant believed that only a GOOD
WILL is morally valuable.

A good will knows what its duty

is (that is, the good will knows
what reason commands it to
do.)
And the good will DOES the
dutiful act because the good
will is dutiful.

The nature of the "good will"

The will determines how our
talents and temperaments are
used. It affects [or conditions]
everything else we do.
Kant argues that some qualities
are helpful to the good will, such
as moderation, self-control and
"sober reflexion", but they are not
good in themselves.
Some talents & temperaments
are a MEANS to the end of a
good will , but are not an end
in themselves.

The "good will" and results

The will is good through its willing
alone. Even if the good will
cannot carry out its intentions, it
is good in itself.
According to Kant we should not
judge the good will by its
"fruitfulness".
fruitfulness = the
consequences of its willing.
The good will is to be judged by
its motive alone.

Reason as the source of

the moral law (reason
"commands")

Kant's premise: "nothing in nature is in

vain", therefore reason must have
some function.
The functions of the preservation of
life or the gaining of happiness are
better performed by instinct.
[examples?]
Thus he concludes that Reason has
nothing to do with our actions, yet is
a practical power -- it influences our
will.
Kant concludes that the true function

The "Good Will" and Duty

What does it mean to act from duty?
It is not enough that an act of a
certain kind be done:
For example: You might, while
lying, accidentally tell the truth.
It is not enough that the act is
INTENDED:
For example: If you are moved
by a sudden feeling of pity, your
act is still without moral value.

An Act Must Be Done From

Principle
In order for an act to be done from
principle there must be a thoughtout rule.
And you must perform the act
because you see it is an INSTANCE
of the rule.
From slide 4: to act morally a
person must see the act is right
(i.e., it is commanded by
REASON) and must do the act
because they see it is right.

The Motive of Duty I

Kant believed that the only motive
that makes an act morally valuable
is that of DUTY
Kant believed that inclinations
other than duty, such as love for
humanity, are variable in nature,
as is self-interest.
He also makes a distinction
between
Acting in conformity with duty
(but not for the right motive)
and
Acting from the MOTIVE of duty.

The Motive of Duty II

When is the motive of duty easiest to
see?
When the dutiful action is not to
your advantage; that is, causes you
pain or loss.
Kant argues that taking pleasure in
giving others happiness has no
moral worth.
Duty resides with the will, not with
feeling. Why? [related to the
problems with inclinations as a
basis for ethics]

3 Propositions and the

Formal Principle of Duty
1st PROPOSITION: This proposition
concerns the nature of duty.
We are to act FROM the motive
of duty, rather than from
conformity with duty. [We just
finished discussing this!]
2nd PROPOSITION is the Formal
Principle of Duty itself.
The 3rd PROPOSITION: "Duty is the
necessity to act out of reverence
for the law.

2nd Proposition:
The Formal Principle of Duty
The moral worth of an action done
from duty is not in the "purpose to
be attained, [i.e. consequences]
but in the maxim (or law) on which
the action is decided.
Moral worth does not come from the
consequences of the action or from
achieving the purpose of the action
The moral worth lies in the
"principle of the will" -- with "every
material principle taken away
[such as inclinations, consequences,

3rd Proposition:
Reverence for the Law
3rd PROPOSTION: "Duty is the
necessity to act out of reverence for
the law.
If we act for the sake of the OBJECT of
our actions we can only act in terms
of inclination. [examples?]
Kant is moving towards the notion
of the moral law as COMMANDED
We must act from the IDEA OF THE
LAW ITSELF
This is only possible for a rational
being
And this doesn't wait for a "result."

The "Categorical Imperative"

The Categorical Imperative is the
means by which we determine
what the moral law is.

It states:
"I ought never to act except in such
a way that I can also will that my
maxim should become a universal
law.
It means:
that we have to be willing for
others to use the same moral law
that we are using.

The Discussion-I:

Is it prudent, or is it right to make

a false promise?

Kant is making the argument that

looking at the consequences of
an action won't help us decide
between
prudence [consequences] and
duty as the justification for a false
promise.

The Discussion - II:

Is it prudent, or is it right to make

a false promise?

If we try to justify a lying promise

on the basis of being prudent, we
arent always able to see the
consequences.
It is also possible that if people
lose confidence in us, what will
happen will be more
disadvantageous than what will
happen now. [magistrate & mob]

Discussion- III:
Does a "lying promise" accord with
duty?

Kant argues that truth for the sake

of duty contains the moral law:

(In the case of prudence you

must look to see what the
effects will be and doing this
does not contain the moral
law.)

Discussion- IV:
Does a "lying promise" accord with
duty?
You must ask whether you can
universalize your maxim. Can you?
You can will to lie, but you cannot
will a universal law of lying. Why
not?
So we reject the "lying promise",
not because of the consequences,
but because it cannot be enacted
as a universal law.

Universalizability
& the Categorical Imperative
The example of Lying: If we will it to be
a universal law -- we lose the
advantage from our lying. Consider
the matter of Consistency - lying
loses 2 ways here
1. If we imagine the consequences of
everyone lying we cannot
consistently
will that everyone adopt this
maxim.
2. OR: I cannot consistently will that I
lie
and you dont!

Formulating maxims
To formulate a maxim correctly you
must:
Be sure the act description is
formulated carefully so it is
relevant. Get the right description.
Be sure that the maxim has
sufficient generality.
Be sure it can pass the
categorical imperative test.
The maxim needs to be related to
the
1. motivating reasons of the
agent,
2. to the act itself and
3. to a universal system of

The Second Formulation of the

Categorical Imperative
We should respect all human beings
impartially.
Because human beings exist as
ends in themselves we should
never use them as mere means.
Kants argument is based on our
rationality. [This is what sets us
aside from those things that are
what he calls objects of
inclination.]
The 2 formulations of the
Categorical Imperative are
basically the same according to
Kant. How so?

Using others as mere means :

What does it mean?
Whether we are using a person as a
mere means can be hard to
determine as our motives are often
mixed, but a mere means situation
may involve the following
characteristics:
deception about true motives
profiting at another persons expense
undermining a persons chance to make
an informed choice [tied to deception]
violating certain other maxims we have

A Brief Summary
The moral law is commanded by
reason.
What makes an action morally right
is that you have a moral maxim that
you can universalize.
It is also wrong to treat people as
mere means
Kant focuses on universality and
impartiality
And these are conditions that are
necessary for people to be treated
freely & equally -- i.e. with

Kant: Pro & Con

Pro:
It is admirable to act from duty
Morality should be evenhanded
The importance of respect for other
persons
Con:
Maintains the split between duty
and inclination
Ignores the role of the emotions in
morality
Ignores the place for consequences
in morality

What ways are available to resolve moral

problems?

1. Evaluate the consequences of the

alternatives. [UTILITARIANISM]
2. Believe that the right action will flow
from our having formed good moral
habits [ARISTOTLE]
3. Act from the correct motive [KANT]
MOTIVES: can be based in feeling or
reason
Kant believes that REASON makes
more stable, universal & impartial
decisions possible

KANT Summary
We are to act on the basis of duty [what
reason commands]
It is the good will that reason creates that
enables us to do this.
Our reverence for the moral law will help
us find what our duty is.
Instead of looking at consequences use
the following principles.
Can you universalize your moral maxim?
Are you using a person as a mere
means?

Ask yourself
What do Kants 2 principles ensure
about the decision we make ? That it
is - STABLE [reason not emotion; also not
consequences]
UNIVERSAL [everyone could use your
maxim]
IMPARTIAL [reason & universalizability]
OBJECTIVE [reason & no emotion]