Unformatted Attachment Preview
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.