Kantian Ethics

Immanuel Kant is considered to be one of the greatest philosophers of the Western world we're going to consider Immanuel Kant's ethics in this podcast first of all note that Immanuel Kant was born in the Year 1724 and died in the Year 1804 this is helpful because in many ways his ideas are conditioned by the timeframe in which he lived it is after all during this particular time that the french enlightenment occurred the Enlightenment as many people know is oftentimes referred to as the age of reason it was an age in which people wish to throw off the shackles of religion and what they deemed to be superstition in favor of Pure Reason the notion was that reason if guided properly would lead us that is humanity to truth Immanuel Kant's ethics is referred to as a de ontology or a de ontological framework the word de ontology stems from the ancient Greek root day on which when literally translated means duty and so right from the outset you can see that Immanuel Kant's ethics are going to very much focus on the role of duty in ethical decision-making he is further going to say that morality and ethics is grounded in reason it's not grounded in tradition intuition notions of conscience emotion were even attitudes such as sympathy once again think about the historical timeframe in which he lived this age of reason this age of reason where people wished to throw off tradition to essentially get rid of tradition in terms of allowing it to have any kind of influence on their decision-making processes he also says that the moral worth of an action depends exclusively on the rule of obligation now that's kind of hard for us to understand sometimes because we like to think that the moral worth of an action might depend on our predisposition for example if we are good hearted and we want to do good for others that is not the case for Immanuel Kant according to him the moral worth so what makes an action actually have a moral value is that it is done exclusively because we know we ought to do it we are obliged to do it it is our duty and he even further says that we act not just in accordance with but for the very sake of obligation once again compare this to other ethical frameworks frameworks for example that talk about maximizing happiness such as utilitarianism you'll see that Immanuel Kant is very very different than that that he contrasts sharply because for him our actions are not about producing more happiness for more people or anything of the sort or acting according to our nature like natural law holds out rather it is acting exclusively because in our reason we deduce that we must do something or we must not do something else he says that Duty is a meaningful concept only to the extent that it must bind every rational subject by every rational subject we are referring after all to human persons he says that if Duty is a meaningful concept then it is something that every single human person must share in and that is to say that it must be categorical he makes a distinction between categorical imperatives which we're going to spend a lot more time on and hypothetical imperatives let me start from hypothetical imperatives just by way of defining what that means a hypothetical imperative is something that we believe we ought to do and it's largely based on our own tastes so for example if I say that I should wear a jacket because I'm getting cold that is a hypothetical imperative and applies only to me it only has to do with whether or not I feel a certain way cold or warm if I say that I ought to eat broccoli well again in in terms of self-interest that might be something that I want to do but it's not something that binds every rational subject on the other hand when we say that something is categorical we mean that it is always everywhere the case in other words we're looking for imperatives we're looking for rules of morality rules of obligation that must be done by everyone in all instances in all cases and he says this must be done from respect respect again not as a feeling because he very much wants to move away from the domain of feelings as having any role in ethical decision-making but rather respect is an essential predisposition but before my reason that is that my reason recognizes that there is something I must do or something that I must not do so another way to look at this is to ask the question well what exactly is moral for cont what is in other words what is it that actually has ethical value well he says that something has moral value if it is again done from this sense of Duty respect for a moral law and right from his text actually the groundwork for the metaphysics of morals he says the moral value of our actions must lie in the principle that guides the will and this is what you might want to underline without regard to the ends that can be attained by the actions in other words I am NOT looking at the Telos this is in complete opposition to teleology I'm not looking at the ends or the purpose or the goal of an action instead I am allowing my will to be guided by a principal and I don't even know what the consequences may be but I must respect that I know in my reason that I must do such-and-such or not do whatever else something lacks moral value for him if it is from what he refers to as self-interest or also direct inclination so in other words if I'm doing something so that I can feel good about it for him that has no moral value if I'm doing something because others have told me that I should do something but I haven't reasoned to it on my own he says that has no moral value even such actions as not lying or cheating or stealing those actions even do not have moral value if the only reason why I am not lying cheating or stealing is because I've been told not to do so in my reason I must arrive at the true principle of that which I ought to do and that which I ought not to do he states that the goodwill acts from duty and it respects the moral law notice this is a reasoned submission to a maxim to what he refers to as the objective rational principle that all of us would pick up on no matter where we are no matter what time plays culture language etc it is a reasoned that's a very important word it is a reasoned submission to a maxim well what is a maxim a maxim is a principle on which a particular subject in fact acts so a maxim is essentially our rule of acting and if you think about it we have many many different Maxim's if we were to write several down I bet you could come up with a page in a rather short amount of time for example I will not cheat I will not lie I will not steal I will not hurt another person simply to get ahead whatever that action is that principle of acting that is in fact a maxim and what he says is that we must be able to universalize a maxim that is we must be able to make it categorical so here's the question then what is the maxim that every rational being would actually in fact assent to well every rational being would follow what he refers to as the categorical imperative if they're truly being rational the categorical imperative think about it categorical always everywhere the case it is unconditional imperative something that I must to do I must do so notice here is his articulation of it I am never to act unless I am acting on a maxim that principle of acting that I can will in other words I want and I can conceive I can in my mind understand rationally so I am never to act unless I'm acting on a maxim that I can will and conceived to become a universal law another way of saying this is to say that I must be without contradiction able to universalize this maxim as a norm of conduct this must be done irrespective of personal desires or even desire the desires of others so for example if you think about it it makes a great deal of sense my Maxim is that I will never break a promise how do I know that it would be not morally permissible for me to break a promise well if I were to break a promise according to Conte I am also willing and in a very with very poor reasoning conceiving a world in which everybody breaks a promise now if everybody broke a promise what would there no longer be that makes a promise a promise the expectation that people have the trust that people have in others if you really break it down you recognize that the very notion of a promise requires these other principles requires these other factors if I broke a promise and thereby said I will that every one breaks a promise would there any longer be such a thing as trust the answer is clearly no and if nobody is trusting anyone ever again is there really such a thing as breaking a promise in other words I have actually self refuted my maxim I have actually acted so illogically as to completely obliterate the very principle upon which I act this can be clearly seen with other examples as well if I ask myself should I steal what what is my duty here should I steal or should I not steal well would I want everyone in the entire world to steal if everyone stole what would there no longer be well there would no longer be personal property no if there's no longer such a thing as personal property is there any longer such a thing as stealing if you think about it this is something that probably our parents taught us from a very young age although I doubt very much that they said that Immanuel Kant came up with it but if you think about it when you were probably young and you went to a grocery store and you took something that wasn't yours and you know you just didn't know better your parents might have stopped you and scolded you and said you know don't do that don't take something that is not yours that you didn't pay for and you may have if you were anything like me you probably asked why and they might have said well how would you like if everyone did this or steal or line even if you think about that you know you you lied and your parents said don't do that and and you didn't really understand why you shouldn't do that and so you asked your parents why and they might very well have said well how would you like if everybody did that well that's exactly what canta saying now there's another way of putting this there's actually a second version of the categorical imperative now I want to emphasize this is the second version this is not another categorical imperative there is only one categorical imperative according to Conte but he believes that there are other ways of saying the same thing for example he says that one must act to treat every person as an end in themselves and never merely as a means why does he say that because if you think about it first of all would you want to live in world where people always treated each other as means what does it mean to be treated as a means well it means to be exploited right it means to be used would you want to live in that world would you want that to be universalized as a maxim that everybody abided by so he says right from the outset we recognize that we would not want to universalize that that the very same principle that is at stake in the categorical imperative that says I am NOT going to do anything unless I will and conceive that everybody do the same thing leads me immediately to say we must act never to treat other persons as means but always as an end in themselves and as a matter of fact Immanuel Kant believes that human persons are the only beings that actually exist as an end in themselves in other words they don't exist for the sake of something else they exist for themselves they are what he refers to as an objective end and so we can never use another person now granted we probably do use people if you think about it and that's why that second version says never merely as a means so if you go to McDonald's and you order a burger the person who is serving it to you is actually a means to your end your end getting the burger but is there a way to treat that person that they're not merely a means and this is a great point for further discussion in class he says that there is yet a third way of stating the categorical imperative and that is to say that the will of every rational being is a will that makes its own universal law he says the will so you know our Center from which we act it is subject to the law because the will is its own author in other words the law does not come from outside of ourselves it comes right out of our own reason it is tied into our own will what we want what we intend this is another way of saying that autonomy is very very important that autonomy is actually its own value it's by virtue of our autonomy that we are given respect value and proper motivation well what is autonomy it is essentially freedom it is essentially the ability to act out of our own will without coercion this does not rule out using people by the way for testing or things of that nature because ultimately what he's driving towards is the very important role of consent that consent actually validates the ethical nature of our decisions when we say yes or no to something truly freely not being coerced not being manipulated not out of fear not out of any other factor than simply our rational reasoned that is submission to a maxim that we know that we are making the right choice

Channel: Flip4Learning

Views: 28,707

Rating: 4.8714285 out of 5

Keywords: Immanuel Kant, Alvernia University, Ethics

Id: xvSyzHB8i_w

Length: 17min 12sec (1032 seconds)

Published: Mon Jun 11 2012