PHIL 2306 Introduction to Ethics Instructor: J. Christopher Jenson jason.jenson@hccs.edu Please Silence Your Phones Definition • Duty Based Ethics • Define right and wrong not in terms of consequences but nature of the action • • May also consider intention Some actions, by their nature, are always wrong, i.e. stealing Ross’s Ethics Bases all decisions of right and wrong on seven duties we are obligated to follow, and that we intuitively know to be true. So Ross is an intuitionist (not a strict deontologist). Ross’s Seven Duties • • • • • • • Justice: the duty to be fair, to treat everyone equally Fidelity: the duty to be honest, to abide by agreements, not to break promises Benevolence: the duty to help others Non-maleficence: the duty not to harm Reparation: the duty to make up for past wrongs Gratitude: the duty to be thankful for favors Self Improvement: the duty to improve one’s own well being, intelligence, and morality Some Observations • • • • There’s no ranking of duties but some are more stringent (i.e., non-maleficence) All duties are conditional, or prima facie: they apply when no other duty conflicts When two duties conflict, the actual duty is the one we will execute When duties conflict, we know intuitively which duty is most important in that situation – our actual duty Some Problems • Moral dilemmas can arise • People may not fully agree about all of our moral duties or our actual duties (if we did there would be far fewer moral problems!) • There’s no procedure offered for how to pick one’s actual duty • • Intuition does not always tell us which duty applies (practicability) Immanuel Kant Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) *The Role of Reason *Two formulations of the Categorical Imperative Königsberg (Kaliningrad) One of the most difficult books ever written. Kantian Ethics Starts with the concept of good will as the basis for morality: Choosing to do something because it is one’s moral duty – freely choosing right because it is right. Three Boy Scouts • Larry helps an old lady across the street because he enjoys her company and helping people out. • Curly helps an old lady across the street because he thinks he ought to • Mo helps an old lady across the street because he hopes she will give him things in return Which of these three has the Good Will? Contrast to Utilitarianism • All three scouts bring about the same effects: the old lady ends up on the other side of the street • But according to Kant, only one has the right motivation. Curly’s actions have the most moral worth because Curly does right for its own sake, not as a means to achieve any other end. Kantian Ethics is Rationalist • Kant thinks that a person does his/her moral duty because he/she sees this is the right thing to do. REASON determines this (having a good will is not sufficient to tell us what we should do). • Every person is in principle capable of reason, so everyone is in principle capable of discovering what the right thing is. • Once we determine what is right, it becomes our moral duty to do it. Reason • A traditional view of reason says that it can only play on instrumental role. Reason cannot tell you what your ultimate goals should be. It can only tell you what you should do given goals you already have. Reason can only give us hypothetical imperatives. Beliefs Reason Action Goals Hypothetical Imperatives • If you want to pass the test, then you should study. • If you’re going to drink, then don’t drive. • If you can’t make our meeting, be sure to call. • If you’re planning to read Kant, then drink lots of coffee. • If you’re the last one out, then turn out the lights. Instrumental Reason • “ ‘Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger” –David Hume 1738 • Actions never derive from reason alone; they must always have a non-rational source. (e.g., our desire for pleasurable experiences and our aversion to painful experiences). • Reasoning can only tell us the means to achieve some goal but, not the end toward which we should aim. The Categorical Imperative • Our moral duties become categorical imperatives: • Categorical = no exceptions • Imperative = command • This is opposed to hypothetical imperatives, things we need to do to achieve a specific goals (e.g., utilitarian goals) Two Categorical Imperatives The Principle of Ends We should act so as to treat every person as an end, and never merely (only) as a means. Shovels are tools for doing things like digging holes. People are not tools. They have intrinsic value, and they have their own goals and objectives. The Principle of Ends • To use a person as merely a means to our own ends and purposes, and disregarding theirs, is to wrong that person. • It is to disregard their autonomy, their intrinsic value. It disrespects them as human beings. Examples VIOLATES PRINCIPLE OF ENDS • Stealing money from someone DOES NOT VIOLATE PRINCIPLE OF ENDS • Borrowing money with a person’s permission • Using a person to cheat on • Mutually helping each an exam • Helping someone because we hope to get their inheritance other review for an exam • Helping someone without expecting personal benefit. Two Categorical Imperatives The Principle of Universal Law Act only in accordance with a maxim that you can rationally will to be a universal moral principle (or law) A maxim is a simple rule of conduct: e.g. “I should not steal.” Kant: The Value of an Act Derives from its Maxim • For Kant our actions have logical implications. They imply general rules or maxims, of conduct. • If you help the elderly woman across the road in order to make her feel indebted to you, then you are in effect acting according to the maxim that it is okay to “cause people to feel indebted to you.” Is this principle in accordance with moral law? The Principle of Universal Law Examples: Maxim: I should steal my friend’s iPad because I want to have it for myself. Universal law: Everyone should be allowed to steal to obtain things for themselves Can I rationally support this principle as a universal law? No. Why? The Principle of Universal Law Because if everyone were to steal things, everything would effectively become common property. I can’t steal my friend’s iPad because it isn’t really his; nor can I make it my own because it is equally available to anyone. The universal practice of “stealing” conflicts with the intention people have for taking things – to have those things for themselves. Thus, universalized stealing would not make sense because no one can obtain anything as their own. As a universal law, stealing is irrational. The Principle of Universal Law Other Examples: 1. Can it be a universal law to cheat or lie? 2. Can it be a universal law to kill? 3. Can it be a universal law to commit suicide? The CI procedure CI#1 Form a Maxim Does it treat people as an End not merely as a Means? No CI#2 P A S S E S Could it become Universal Law? No Fails the Categorical Imperative: IT IS NOT MORALLY RIGHT! Kant’s Argument for an Absolute Rule Against Lying 1. We should do only those actions that conform to rules that we could will to be adopted universally. 2. If you were to lie, you would be following the rule “It is okay to lie.” 3. This rule would not be adopted universally, because it would be self-defeating: People would stop believing one another, and then it would do no good to lie. 4. Therefore, you should not lie. One more example One more example What is the maxim? One more example What is the maxim? Maxim: When I am need of a parking spot and there are no other spaces, I will park in the handicap spot even though I am not handicapped. Can we will this as a universal law without contradiction? One more example • No. Not without contradiction: • The concept of handicap parking spot is defined as being reserved for handicapped people. • If ANYONE parks in a handicap parking spot, then it ceases to be reserved for the handicapped. Moral Dilemmas • Perfect duties (can’t be obeyed by degrees) —take precedence over imperfect duties • Imperfect duties - can be fulfilled to varying degrees The Categorical Imperatives Compared Both principles are intended to yield the same answers to moral questions. Both principles value the rationality of the human person and think of the human person as having intrinsic value. Kant’s Autonomy Principle • Reason exists only in persons - persons can discover the moral law only through reason. • Also: each “makes” moral law for herself – as a “legislator” of the moral law (not subjectivism) • Principle of Autonomy: Every person is equally a creator of the universal moral law, that is, each person makes the moral law for herself. Objections: Ignoring Consequences There are no utility-based exceptions to the categorical imperative. • Should you honestly answer this man if he asks where his wife is? • Isn’t lying treating him merely as a means and not as an end in himself? Objections 1. Consequentialist objection: consequentialists charge Kantian ethics with completely ignoring the consequences of actions. 2. Kant: we cannot be responsible for what happens later or how others act. Objections 3. Many Formulations: What if I formulate my universal law as “everyone who needs food to survive should be allowed to steal” Can differently formulated maxims pass or fail universalization? This problem may have an answer. If “everyone should be allowed to steal” is already immoral, then a qualified version of this is immoral also. Besides, isn’t it still true that any form of stealing uses a person as a mere means to an end? Objections 4. Rational Agents: Kantian Ethics is based on each person’s rationality Excludes animals, so we have no direct duty to treat animals, even our pets, with any sort of kindness. (but, indirect duties…) May also exclude people in comas, or not yet born or just born, or who have advanced dementia. Possible answer: extend duties to most humans because they are at least potentially rational? The needs of the many… The needs of the one… Trolley Problems 42 PHIL 2306 Introduction to Ethics Instructor: J. Christopher Jenson jason.jenson@hccs.edu Please Silence Your Phones Definition Rule utilitarianism applies the principle of utility to rules, not individual acts: Principle of rules: The morally right rule is the one that promotes the greatest overall utility (happiness, pleasure) (still uses scope, duration, intensity, probability) Principle of acts: The morally right act is one that follows a rule that promotes utility Similiarities with Act Utilitarianism • Provides an objective base for morality. Makes morality an empirical science. • Act & Rule Utilitarianism are impartial. They treat all individuals equally. • Extends the circle of moral concern to animals (for better or worse). How is this different from act utilitarianism? • Utilitarian rules apply to everyone. • We don’t have to calculate the consequences of each action, only the rule (once) • Can support practices and social institutions (e.g., promise-making) that act utilitarianism cannot. • Can require an act that doesn’t promote overall utility in that situation. How is this different from act utilitarianism? • Right rules are determined by calculating the utility produced by all applications of the rule. This helps solve the calculation problem. • Some rules that force us to act certain ways promote disutility in the longer run, this helps solve the problem with moral saints (supererogation) and agent relative intuitions. • Rules that permit moral wrongs or injustices may backfire, so they are not as likely to create utility in the long term. This helps solve problems with rights/justice. (solves organ harvesting). Examples • Lawyer client privilege as a rule: causes disutility only in a few cases, so it’s a good rule • Forced organ donation as a rule: not a good rule in the long run • Rule that you must give up 40% of your income for charity. Would this sap the incentive to work hard and produce more? Problems 1. Dilemmas: rules can come into conflict with one another. e.g. telling the truth v protect the lives of innocents Add: Dilemma principle: When circumstances place two or more moral rules in conflict, the morally right act is that which will produce the greatest overall utility. Problems 2. Inconsistency: act utilitarians will object that rule utilitarianism sometimes violates the principle it is built on, the principle of utility In some situations, following a rule will not create as much overall utility as act utilitarianism would. Possible solution: fine tune rules to make them apply more specifically and increase their overall utility (tax law) Problems 3. Collapse of rule utilitarianism: if we fine tune the rules too far, we approach the point at which there is a “rule” for each case In effect, then, rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism. Response: too many very complex fine-tuned rules does not promote utility – this creates natural stopping point for fine-tuning, avoiding collapse Justice Revisited BUT: Not all rule utilitarian rules (especially when fine-tuned) preserve justice - e.g., we could fine-tune the forced organ donation rule to instead say that we should harvest organs from individuals that have no family and do not benefit society Possible solution: (alternate dilemma principle) this rule does not promote overall justice; and rules that promote overall justice have precedence over rules that do not. Justice Revisited • “Just as the utility produced by an act depends on the act’s circumstances, the utility produced by any rule will depend, to some degree, on the circumstances of the society in which the rule is implemented.” (B & R 143). • So, each rule will depend to some degree on a particular social setting. This undermines the idea that justice and rights apply universally. PHIL 2306 Introduction to Ethics INSTRUCTOR: J. CHRISTOPHER JENSON JASON.JENSON@HCCS.EDU Please Silence Your Phones Assessing Ethical Theories WHAT SHOULD A GOOD ETHICAL THEORY DO? The Origin of Moral Claims ● How do people form their beliefs about moral right and wrong? ● From our parents ● From religious teachings ● Conscience ● Peers ● Ethics course! ● What makes something right or wrong? ● Ethical theories address this in two ways: ● Simplify morality to a few foundations as completely as possible ● Foundations should explain good and bad, right and wrong Criteria of Adequacy ● Completeness - Does the theory support an entire range of moral claims. ● Example: hedonistic theories may not adequately explain justice ● Explanatory Power - does the theory provide a satisfying unifying explanatory basis for the moral realm ● Example: hedonistic theories do this: in terms of promoting happiness ● Example: computer program that tells us what is right or wrong with perfect accuracy ● would satisfy completeness but lack explanatory power. Criteria of Adequacy ● Practicability - how useful is the theory in practice? ● Generates clear and precise moral claims, is not vague ● Furnishes substantial moral guidance that takes into account human limitations ● Doesn’t yield irresolvable conflicts ● (None of the above has anything to do with an account actually being correct. ● Moral Confirmation - are there good reasons for thinking the theory gives correct answers? ● How do we determine this? Moral Confirmation ● Start with our strong intuitions about what is right for at least parts of morality. ● Resembles confirming scientific theories ● Science tested by experiments and observations ● ethical theories tested by thought experiments and our strongest moral intuitions ● If only some fail at only certain points, don’t reject theory ● Make Adjustments and additions ● Test revised theory ● Ongoing give-and-take process Utilitarianism M OR A LIT Y M E A N S T H A T YOU A R E OB LIGA TED TO DO YOU R B EST Utilitarians • Jeremy Bentham • 1748-1842 • The Principles of Morals and Legislation. (1789). • John Stuart Mill • 1806-1873 • Utilitarianism. (1863) Courage of his convictions Based on his Utilitarian moral theory, Bentham was early defender (in 1789!) of: • Economic liberalization • Freedom of expression • Separation of church and state • women’s rights • animal rights • the right to divorce • the abolition of slavery • the abolition of capital punishment • the abolition of corporal punishment • prison reform • decriminalization of homosexual acts. John Stuart Mill promoted social reform, individualism, and women’s rights “PRAY CLEAR THE WAY, THERE, FOR THESE—A—PERSONS” Ed Flouren’s Pharmaceutical Company ● Ed announces a new drug, produced by his company, that effectively controls seizures. ● Reviewing the data, Ed discovers that rate of severe side effects including stomach bleeding and perforations has been misreported due to a decimal error. He thought it was 0.07%, but it was actually 0.7%; a ten-fold mistake. ● Should he call for an immediate halt for his company on going trial with 2,800 patients? ● If the trials are halted the rosy prospects for Ed’s company will collapse for at least the near future. ● Those presently taking the drug will lose the benefit. ● Continued trials would produce important additional information, possibly leading to safer and more effective drugs in the future. ● Continued trials would help Ed’s company. ● Continued trials would benefit most people currently taking the drug, but a few might suffer the more serious side effects. The components of hedonistic utilitarianism Part 1: A theory about the structure of morality ● Consequentialism: all that morally matters is the consequences of action The components of hedonistic utilitarianism Part 2: A theory about the object of morality The highest good is pleasure Classical (hedonistic) utilitarianism consequentialism + the highest good is pleasure = hedonistic utilitarianism The Greatest Happiness Principle Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Utilitarian Principles ● If an action X has better consequences than any other action you could perform instead, then your duty (moral obligation) is to do X. ● If an action X has better consequences than any other action you could perform instead, then you are morally forbidden from doing any action other than X. Doing something else is the wrong thing to do. ● If actions X and Y have better consequences than any other action you could perform instead, and X does not have better consequences than Y, but Y does not have better consequences than X either, you are obligated to perform one of the actions, but it is morally permissible for you to pick either one. Do you only need to consider consequences for yourself? ● NO! That would turn utilitarianism into egoism ● You need to consider the consequences for everyone affected by your action What about motives and intent? ● Not relevant to whether an action is right or wrong ● Motives and intent determine praiseworthiness and blameworthiness What if all the choices are bad ones? ● Then choose the lesser evil. That will yield a higher amount of happiness in the world than any other choice Jeremy Bentham, the father of modern utilitarianism, stuffed and on display at University College London How can we measure pleasures and pains? Bentham’s The Felicific Calculus • • • • • • • Intensity Duration Certainty or uncertainty Propinquity or remoteness Fecundity Purity Extent How can we measure pleasures and pains? Burnor & Raley’s Felicific Calculus • • • • Scope - Which individuals will be affected? How many? Duration - How long will the effect last? Intensity - Experiences can differ in their degree and strength or force. Probability - Calculate expected value Expected Value ● When you have an action that could produce two or more different outcomes and you know (or can roughly estimate) the probability of each outcome occurring, you can calculate the expected value as the weighted average of the value of each outcome. Expected Value ● Example: Suppose you are thinking about buying a raffle ticket for $5. Each ticket has a 1 in 100 (0.o1) probability of winning a $50 gift card to your favorite restaurant. ● The value of winning is $45 ($50 card - $5 for the ticket) ● The value of losing is -$5 (the price of the ticket). ● The probability of winning is 1 in 100 or 0.01 ● The probability of losing is 99 in 100 or 0.99 ● EV= ($45 * 0.01) + (-$5 * 0.99) ● EV= $0.45 - $4.95 ● EV= -$4.50 Expected Value ● -$4.50 is the amount you should expect to lose on average if you participated in the raffle many, many times. ● The EV of not buying the ticket is $0 on average. ● This is the better option if you’re only concerned with money. Expected Value in Moral Cases ● The idea of expected value is important in moral cases where we might think of something other than money as valuable. ● The philosopher Shelly Kagan was interested in the claim that when it comes to big social issues, a single individual’s actions don’t matter morally because that person “can’t make a difference.” ● Kagan constructed an argument against buying chickens to eat using an expected value calculation. Expected Chickens 1. If I buy a (dead, prepackaged) chicken at the grocery store, there is a probability of 0.04 (1 in 25) that my purchase will prompt the store to order another case of 25 chickens from their supplier, who will raise and slaughter 25 more chickens as a result; and a probability of 0.96 (24 in 25) that my purchase will not prompt the store to order more chickens. 2. Thus, the “expected number of chickens” to be raised and slaughtered because of my buying a chicken is 1. 3. The suffering that a single chicken endures in being raised on an industrial chicken farm and slaughtered in an industrial slaughterhouse outweighs the pleasure you get from eating that chicken. 4. Thus, the state of affairs in which you buy a chicken from the grocery store is worse than the state of affairs in which you buy a vegetarian alternative. 5. Thus, it is morally forbidden for you to buy a chicken from the grocery store. Quality and Quantity Jeremy Bentham: we need to maximize the quantity of pleasure in the world. John Stuart Mill: we need to be concerned with the quality of pleasures too. Bentham: All Pleasures are the Same "The uXlity of all these arts and sciences, …the value which they possess, is exactly in proporXon to the pleasure they yield. Every other species of preeminence which may be aZempted to be established among them is altogether fanciful. Prejudice apart, the game of pushpin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry. If the game of push-pin furnish more pleasure, it is more valuable than either.” (Bentham) How is the promotion of higher quality pleasures consistent with the general utilitarian goal of maximizing quantity? ● One answer is that in the case of a tie in quantity, we should prefer pleasures of higher quality. Our moral duty is to maximize quantity, but in case of a tie between two actions, perform the one that yields pleasures of a higher quality. How can we determine which pleasures are of higher quality? ● Mill: take a poll. For every two pleasures, we poll all those who have sampled both and see which one they prefer, irrespective of quantity or feeling of obligation to prefer it. That is the pleasure with the highest quality. ● Objection: Won’t a poll show that people actually prefer lower quality pleasures? You have two choices for Saturday night. Which do you pick? Your first choice: cheap beer and watching the Redneck Games on TV. Your second choice: reading philosophy Two responses from Mill ● Competent Judges: few have really tried to read philosophy, but many have drunk cheap beer and watched trashy TV. We need to poll the truly competent judges. ● Weakness of the Will: even competent judges can succumb to easy temptations of lower pleasures, while still recognizing the the higher quality ones. What is the quality of pleasure? ● A theory of quality: quality is the density of pleasure per unit of delivery. = Which would you prefer? ● A fishing trip where you only catch one big lunker and nothing else, or a fishing trip where you catch a big string of small fish. ● Buying one case of really good beer, or for the same money buying two cases of cheap beer that tastes half as good. A Month of Drinking front columns = Jane Pivo rear columns = Joe Sixpack Units of pleasure Days of drinking Should we pursue the higher quality pleasures? ● Mill thinks we should live our lives like Jane Pivo: become knowledgeable about various pleasures, pursuing and promoting them. ● What about when higher quality pleasures are in short supply or expensive or difficult to obtain? Utilitarianism CRITICISMS Objection 1: Practicality ● Objection: Utilitarianism is too impractical because there is no way we predict all of the outcomes of our actions to the end of time, as the theory requires. ● Possible utilitarian response: no one said that morality was easy. All we can do is the best we can, and we can be praiseworthy for the effort. Objection 2: invasiveness ● Objection: Every aspect of your life now has moral weight—what you have for breakfast, what side of the bed you get up on, when you should take out the garbage. ● Possible utilitarian response: every action has moral properties like every object has mass. The moral weight of breakfast is like a feather; not something to worry about. Objection 3: supererogation ● Definition of supererogation: a good action that is greater than what duty requires. ● Objection: there are no supererogatory acts for utilitarians. You are always obligated to do your best. Example: Pvt. Ross McGinnis, who threw himself on an Iraqi grenade to save his comrades, was no moral hero. He simply did his duty. Objection 4: Simpson’s Paradox ● Definition of Simpson’s Paradox: when a set can be partitioned into subsets that each have a property opposite to that of the superset. Example: In the 2009 Wimbledon finals, Roger Federer beat Andy Roddick by a score of 5–7, 7–6 (8–6), 7–6 (7–5), 3–6, 16–14. Even though Roddick won most of the games (39 versus Federer’s 38), he still lost the match. Why is Simpson’s Paradox a problem for utilitarianism? Imagine a desert island of scarce resources. Which scenario should we bring about? Objection 5: Agent-relative intuitions Do you have special obligations to your friends and family? Objection 6: Nothing is absolutely wrong Under utilitarianism there is no action so terrible that it should never be performed under any conditions. Example: The organ robber Trolley Problems ● Trolley Problems Trolley Problems We now turn to the most influential of all deontological theories, that of the eigh- teenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant maintains that moral principles are based on reason. He therefore rejects any suggestion that moral truth can be discovered through intuition. As a deontologist, he also re- jects any suggestion that morality could depend on consequences. For Kant, moral principles are both discovered and established through reason. Kant particularly objects to the notion that morality could somehow depend on consequences. To embrace any consequentialist theory, we must first decide what values we should promote. This is not an easy matter even for consequen- tialists. Hedonists think pleasure should be promoted; other utilitarians also in- clude other values (e.g., knowledge or creativity). The crucial question, however, is whether any of these values has foundational worth. According to Kant, none do. While people may seek such things, none of these values are good in and of themselves. A foundational good, in contrast, has its goodness intrinsically and so will always augment the goodness of any situation to which it is added. But none of the preceding always increases goodness. Take pleasure, for instance. Although increasing pleasure often adds to the good, in some cases it decidedly does not. The enjoyment Al derived from “chewing out” Fred was mean-spirited; it certainly did not make that situation better. Or imagine an interrogator who enjoys “breaking” his subject through pain and fear. In both cases, the added sadistic pleasure only makes things worse, morally speaking, than if that pleasure were not there. Similar considerations go against other values as well. Knowledge and creativity, for instance, increase good when put to good uses. But suppose they are used to devise a more deadly terrorist attack or to pull off a more perfect murder. How can they be viewed as good in those circumstances? From Kant's perspective, the problem with all these values is that they can either increase or decrease a situation's goodness, depending on the actor's mo- tives. The same holds for anything we might try to promote among an acts con- sequences. None, therefore, can count as foundational values. To find something of genuine moral worth, we must give up on consequences and look in the other direction—at the motives and intentions of the agent. Here we will find, according to Kant, the only thing of foundational moral worth—the Good Will. Exercising the Good Will amounts to choosing to do something precisely because it is one's moral duty - because it is morally right. The Good Will is motivated solely by moral duty. It doesn't do something for the sake of gaining pleasure, knowledge, satisfaction, or any other such value. Its only motivation is the rightness of an act. To make this clearer, imagine three Boy Scouts, who each help a little old lady across the street at different times of the day. Why do they do this? Well, each has his reasons: Larry helps her because he likes her, enjoys her company, and feels good about helping her out. I 1 I just a nice guy and wants to help people. Curly helps her because that's the right thing to do. He helps because she needs help, and he can help her. He sees helping as his moral duty. • Mo helps her because she's rich, and he hopes she might take a liking to him and either give him things or maybe write him into her will. She won't live much longer anyway. One very important thing about this story is that the consequences of each scout helping the lady are exactly the same. In each case, she gets safely across the street; each scout may even inherit the same amount from her fortune! Despite the iden- tical consequences, however, there certainly are moral differences among the three boys. Kant thus seems right—at least for this case-in claiming that consequences may not make much moral difference after all. What do make a difference are their respective motives or intentions. Mo clearly doesn't have Kant's Good Will; he helps only out of selfishness. What about Larry? While he has better intentions than Mo, when you really think about it, Larry also acts to fulfill his own personal desires. He helps because it makes him feel good. Would he continue to help if he no longer experienced these good feelings? In any case, Kant doesn't think Larry has the Good Will since what gets Larry out on the street really comes down to what he wants and feels, not duty. Only Curly has the Good Will. Curly, regardless of his feelings one way or the other, acts out of a commitment to do right. He may enjoy helping or he may dislike it, but that's all beside the point; Curly acts purely out of a sense of moral duty. This, Kant thinks, is truly praiseworthy: the Good Will is the only genuine moral good. This leads to an obvious question: if Curly's Good Will consists in his freely doing his moral duty precisely because it is his moral duty, then what determines his moral duty? After all, morality can't consist simply in having good intentions and then doing whatever we please! If Curly believed it his duty to rob the Sav- ings and Loan to provide for his destitute grandmother, that wouldn't make his robbing the bank okay. Kant's reply is that the Good Will is dictated by reason because moral duties are determined by reason. But we again need to be careful here. Just as the Good Will doesn't consist solely of good intentions, the use of reason doesn't just consist of thinking carefully about what we might do. It would be even worse to interpret Kant as somehow inviting us to “rationalize” our doing something wrong. Rather , Kant makes reason the foundation of all moral duty, and because reason is the same for all, the duties of the Good Will are the same for all. In sum, the Good Will—what might better be called the rational Good Will- has two essential aspects. First, it freely chooses to do its duty precisely because that is its duty; its choice is motivated solely by moral duty. Second, that duty is determined by reason. The Good Will is thus essentially rational: moral duty de- pends entirely on what reason demands.