Writing Summary

User Generated

oyhrurycre

Humanities

Description

Reading the categorical imperative to write a 1.5 pages summary with single space and follow MLA format.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

is an acceptable ad was made universally required the The categorical imperative you The core principle of Kant moral theory is the categorical imperative. This is used in Kantian theory to determine what is morally right and wrong in a parallel manner to the way that the principle of utility is used in utilitarianism. In the Groundwork as a means by which to judge all actions. The categorical imperative states that of the Metaphysics of Morals ([1785) 1997), Kant sets out the categorical imperative that it should become a universal law. The categorical imperative is not as complex should act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will as it sounds. Quite simply, if you would be (reasonably) happy for everyone to have to perform the same action in the same circumstances then an action is moral, if Kant uses the example of promising to show how his argument works. He presents - a principle of you would not then it is not. a case of a person who is forced to borrow money. The person knows that they will not be able to pay it back but they also know that they must promise to pay it back or the money will not be lent. If you turn this act into a "maxim" action - then you get the following maxim: "If one needs money one can borrow it by promising to repay it, even if one knows this is impossible". If this maxim (which Kant describes as the principle of self-love) is assessed according to the categorical imperative, it is clear that the action is morally wrong or impermissible. As soon as we consider whether this maxim could be universalized, become a universal moral law" that applies to everyone in a similar situation, it is clear that it could not. As Kant states, it would contradict itself: promises would cease to be believed because promises to repay money would be worthless; they would be to use Kant's words, "vain pretences" In this example of the "lying promise" we can see how the universalizablity cri- terion in the form of the categorical imperative functions in Kant's framework and the importance of rationality in making sense of Kant's position. For Kant, even if you are in desperate need of money you cannot believe that it is morally right to lie in order to borrow money that you know you cannot repay. For as soon as you consider what it would mean if this action were universalized and everyone acted the same way, the unacceptability of the proposed lying promise becomes clear. The lying promiser cannot respond that they are happy for there to be a rule that everyone in a similar position should act in the same way, because this would not be rational (it would destroy the practices and presumptions of promising and the system would break down). Nor can the lying promiser appeal to consequences - such as that the 54 money is needed to feed his children or for any other "good works" -- because these are not relevant, but rather special pleading. The only thing of import in determining whether an action is morally imperative is whether it passes or fails the test of the categorical imperative. In this sense, then, Kantianism can be said to be impartial. Key to Kant's moral framework is the importance of rationality or, to put it more simply, sound reasoning, Kant does not have much time for excuses for moral fail- ures: nor does he accept that desires or wishes can be so overwhelming that the person could not control themselves and make the reasonable choice. In the Critique arguments. He uses an example of "irresistible lust" to show that in fact there is no such thing. In his example he asks whether someone who claimed their lust was "irresistible would still act on it if they knew that immediately after satiating their lust they would be hanged: he suggests that the gallows be erected directly in front of the house. Kant argues that in such an instance the lust would not be acted on, and that as soon as we reflect on such cases we recognize that we are in fact free to choose and to use reason to discover what is morally good. Clearly, for Kant, claims such as it just happened" and "I couldn't help it" are not real excuses at all, but merely forms of convenient self-deceit. In this instance the "luster" has a self- interested reason that outweighs his desire, despite his lust he restrained himself in order to avoid execution. If you can refrain for self-interested reasons then you can also refrain for moral reasons. Kantian theory puts acting according to moral duty above human feelings and desires, and places no weight on justification by consequences. Instead it grounds morality in determining conduct by considering what are (or could rationally be) universal rules, from which absolute moral rules are derived. Once you know these moral rules and what acts are right and wrong then they must be followed absolutely and without exception. For Kant, one such absolute rule is that lying is always wrong and morally prohibited. This remains true in all circumstances, and to illustrate Kant's commitment to universalizability we shall consider one final example, Kant's famous "Inquiring Murderer", taken from On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives (1797). In this example, Kant argues that a lie always harms another, if not directly in the situation then indirectly in damaging "humanity in general". Just as in the "lying promise" example, the action cannot be universalized because it would damage all promises and all contracts. The absoluteness of the duty to truth, Kant argues, even applies if a would-be murderer asks you to tell the whereabouts of the intended victim. In addition to the general undermining of contracts he also argues that you should not lie because if you do you will be responsible for any unforeseen consequences (including accidentally leading the murderer to his victim). The more serious worry for Kant is about breaking the universal criteria. Protecting morality and upholding reason means respecting the absoluteness of the moral law. Even in extreme circumstances, such as lying to prevent murder or GLOBAL ETHICS cannot be reasonably universalized If we were to make lying a universal law, which to prevent starvation, Kant holds to his conviction that lying is wrong because it we could rationally wish that all persons in similar situations would do, it would be self-defeating. We would undermine the whole system of truth-telling. If lying trust that they were being told the truth. Thus, a successful lie requires that were universalized then it would very quickly become the case that people did not people tell the truth and therefore relies on lying not being universalized. A purely self-interested action cannot be made into a universal maxim (such that it would be required of all) because it results in contradiction. Put most simply, in cases like these you have an absolute or perfect" duty to yourself to obey - in Kant's memorable most phrase - The moral law within To the first formulation of the categorical imperative Kant added a second: that you should "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never only as a means" Some have argued that this is not another formulation of the categorical imperative at all, but rather a second injunction. However, for our purposes of simply understanding a Kantian approach to ethics it does not matter too much if it is a restatement or a second criterion for what is moral. What matters is that it provides a clear set of criteria by which to evaluate moral action. The fends not only means criterion is important not only because it provides a high standard for our treatment of others - which is different from utilitarian thinking where it would be acceptable to use individuals as means as long as the consequences were good - but also, importantly, because it insists that this includes not treating oneself as a means. Thus you have duties to yourself as well as to others, which, unlike utilitarianism, makes Kantianism a theory that CASE STUDY 3.3 Kantianism and female genital cutting For a Kantian, whether FGC is right or wrong is dependent on whether or not it is univer- salizable. So for the action to be morally permitted, you would have to be able rationally to will that this action became a universal law. So is it possible to argue that a rational person would wish that practising FGC could be endorsed by, and would not violate, a universal law? Again, as with utilitarianism, it is possible for different proponents of the same theory to argue differently. But, given the negative health outcomes of FGC it is hard to imagine how you could reasonably universalize such a practice. For example, if the argument was about not FGC, but another practice that led to frequent infections and physical suffering, could you argue that this practice should be universalized? A potential counter-argument would be to argue that physical suffering is not intrinsic to the practice and that it could personnel be addressed by ensuring that the practice was carried out in hospital by qualified medical MORAL THEORY FOR GLOBAL ETHICS Box 3.9 Kantianism Kantianism: • is universalizable: asserts moral right and wrong, determined by the categorical imperative: • finds that moral agents are rational • treats human beings as ends not only means, • respects persons is respectful of the "ends" of individuals and their own projects and concerns. So Kantianism, for all its strictness about moral absolutes, is not over-demanding in the way that utilitarianism is (Box 3.9). That is, a proper part of the moral life is the respecting and giving time to one's own goals rather than simply spending all one's time bringing about the greater good. Kantianism for global ethics? The notion that there are actions that are always right or wrong makes Kantianism an important and attractive theory for global ethics. There are many problems with Kantianism, perhaps most obviously the rigid- ity of his absoluteness. While many want to say (in conflict with utilitarianism) The Kantian, having determined, using the categorical imperative, whether FGC was acceptable, would then need to check that it did not contravene the second formula- tion: that people are always respected as "ends in themselves and never as means. This criterion allows you to consider issues such as the potentially patriarchal and sexist nature of the practice, as you can ask about whether the autonomy (or "ends") of the women involved is respected. Again, you could come to different conclusions, depending on how you weighted the facts. Yet clearly there are some issues that do appear on this framework and not on the utilitarian framework and vice versa: for example, the Kantian framework does not take account of the "happiness" of those involved but decides on whether the act is right according to whether or not it conforms to the categorical imperative. The Kantian must ask: • Would it be reasonable for FGC to be a universal law? • Does FGC respect persons and treat them as ends in themselves? GLOBAL ETNICS counter-example is that of people hiding Jews lying a porte that lying is generally wrong, and largely irrespective of consequences, they also one that upholds the general duty to truthfulness. A common case presented wish to argue that there are some exceptions where the morally good act is the duty to refrain from lying? Many people would insist that, in fact, they had seeking them. Surely the counter example suggests, those people did not have to the Nazi soldiers who we the Jews' lives. There are many more such counter-examples, and it is used when considering current global dilemmas to ask what normally wrong acts are permis tive moral duty to deceive the Nazis if doing so thwarted their evil ends and saved sible in extreme circumstances. Such an exercise will help you plot your own moral commitments and convictions. For instance, is it acceptable to steal to prevent star vation? Alternatively, is it acceptable to indulge and have a luxurious Christmas dinner while others are starving? Ar what point do you draw the line? And to importantly for ethical reasoning, why? On what grounds? What reasons do you both the complexity of moral problems and which type of moral theory is most in think justify your moral solution? Working out where you stand will help you to see There are further problems with Kantian theories, although we do not need to go into them in detail. For example, what do you do when you have to choose between two wrong acts! Think about the case of the "Inquiring Murderer, where accord with your own moral intuitions. it is both wrong to lie and wrong to assist in murder. Kant would seem to be clear about which act was absolute ; but if you simply used the categorical imperative you might conclude that not assisting in murder was equally absolute. A further criticism worth mentioning is that, for some, the absoluteness regarding right and wrong is thought to wrongly, make morality a system of rules that the moral agent simply has to follow (Box 3.10). Box 3.10 Summing up Kantianism Advantages • It fits with the moral intuition that some things are always wrong. • It is universal • It treats all similar cases similarly • It respects persons Disadvantages • There are some conflicts with moral experience (8.9. the "Inquiring Murderer"). • It reduces morality to rules • It is legalistic and mechanistic • There are conflicts of rules and acts. 58
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

...


Anonymous
Very useful material for studying!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags