Ethical Theories: Kantianism Kantianism By 18th-century German - - PDF document

Ethical Theories: Kantianism

Kantianism

• By 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant.
• He believed that the only thing that is good without qualification is good will –

should use our reason to cultivate good will ○ Kant believed that our will should be grounded in universal moral rules i.e. unconditional rules that apply to everyone in all situations (categorical imperative) ○ This is in opposition to a hypothetical imperative, which describes the means to a certain end e.g. “If I want to pass the exam, then I need to study”

• The first formulation of the categorical imperative (1F) states the following:

○ Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time wish that it should become a universal law ○ Adam’s version: “Only choose to do something if that is the choice that you want everyone to make in that situation”

• For example, under this imperative, lying would be wrong. Why?

○ If lying was universally acceptable, then no one would believe anyone and truths would be assumed to be lies, thus contradicting the reliability of language

• Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative (2F) states the following:

○ Act in a such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person

• r in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but

always as an end in itself ○ Colin’s version: ”Don’t use people for your own selfish gains and treat them as autonomous, rational beings.”

• For example, theft is always wrong under 1F because you are treating the owner
• f the stolen thing as a means to an end (i.e. you want the stolen thing)
• Example:

Suppose you manage a small office of a much larger software company. You know in that about one year, the company plans to shut down your

• ffice to cut costs. However, you need to hire engineers in the short term

to meet a deadline. The best applicants are from out of state. If you tell them you are going to move, you might not be able to hire them in the first

• place. If you don’t tell them, then they probably will be unhappy that they

will move once the job is over.

 Under 2F, you should disclose the company’s plans to the job applicants

• therwise you are treating them as a means to an end

 Thus, under Kantian ethics, we must ask ourselves two questions:

• Can I rationally wish that everyone act as I propose to act?
• Does my action respect the people involved rather than using them

for my own purposes?  Kantian ethics are deoontoligical (or non-consequentialist) ethics – they judge an action based on properties intrinsic to the action itself, rather than the outcomes or consequences of the action  From Kant’s perspective, motivation is extremely important in determining a person’s moral worth (ie. Whether a person is morally praiseworthy or morally blameworthy)  Kant argued that one can have moral worth only if they are motivated by morality  For example, being generous to feel good about oneself is not morally worthy according to Kant. Instead, being generous because it is one’s duty is how one earns a moral worth.  What are some of the strengths of Kantianism:

• Takes motivation into account
• Ascribes morality even though you don’t know what the

consequences will be (don’t have to omniscient)

• It treats all people as equal
• It gives all people moral worth by considering them as rational,

autonomous beings

• It holds everyone to the same ethical standard

 What are some of the weaknesses of Kantianism:

• No flexibility or bending of the rules
• But could add situational maxims?
• The more complicated the rule, the more difficult it is to

understand and apply

• Sometimes no single ethical rule completely captures a situation
• Can come up with scenarios that lead to no meaningful answer or

an obviously wrong answer

• Motivation is subjective sometimes
• Ignores the consequences (unlike utilitarianism)
• Which rule takes precedence?

• Kantian ethics criticized for being an idealized version of what

should be done in perfect world rather than what is actually done in the real world