Post #1: Ethics – Kantian Ethics

    In the early modern period of western philosophy, one of the most important philosophers of the time was the man Immanuel Kant. Kant introduced a plurality of different ideas, but one of his most prominent theories actively taught today is his ethical theory, the categorical imperative.

    The categorical imperative is considered in moral philosophy to be a deontological theory, meaning that the consequences of moral decisions are irrelevant in the rightness or wrongness of the action, and only the fulfillment of our moral duty constitutes an act as morally right or morally wrong. The categorical imperative also disregards the desires or circumstances of the individual or individuals involved. 

    A large underlying part of the categorical imperative is the idea of respect and fairness. This is seen in the universalizability principle, the first formulation of Kant's categorical imperatives. The universalizability principle defines an action as morally acceptable if, and only if, you can will that maxim to a universal law. A maxim according to Kant is a statement of oneself doing an action to get a result, typically in the form of "I ought to... in order to ...", and a universal law is a statement of action in regards to everyone usually in the form "Everyone ought to...", so in simplistic terms, this simply means that an action is only right if it is permissible for every one to do it.

    To determine whether a maxim can be willed a universal law, we must look at whether the maxim violates any of what Kant calls perfect and imperfect duties. Perfect duties are duties that arise in which failure to do so would lead one to experience moral blame, such as killing another person. These are duties that should always be performed, regardless of time or duration of its necessity. Imperfect duties are duties of which have some sort of moral value, but are somewhat limited in practicality. For example, donating money to a charity is an act deemed morally praiseworthy, but we are certainly not obligated to donate all of our money all of the time. 

    Let us look at the maxim "I ought to rob the bank in order to get rich." We must change the wording so that the maxim applies to everyone, so we have "Everyone ought to rob the bank in order to get rich." This maxim, however, leads to a contradiction in conception, where the result of the universal law is no longer a way to complete its goal, because if everyone followed this universal law, then there would be no money in the bank, nor would people put their money in the bank, meaning one could no longer get rich robbing it. These failures mean that this maxim fails the categorical imperative and cannot be universalized.

    Another formulation of the categorical imperative is the principle of ends. The principle of ends states that one must "act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." This simply means that one should not exclusively use another person as a tool to further their own goals, but to consider their humanity and right to self-autonomy. This principle does not tell one that people cannot be utilized in their goals, but that every human being has free will, and to deny one's right to free will to determine their own actions and refuse to do an action should they choose is a violation of their human rights, as well as their imperfect duty to further the ends of both ourselves and others. As an example, slavery is considered a violation of the principle of ends because to establish property rights over another human is to deny their free will as a human. The same thing applies to an instance where a person is lied to in order to convince them to do something, as this wold go against the other person's ability to rationally make decisions.

    Kant's categorical imperative is a moral theory that is prone to many objections in the absoluteness of its rules. The next post will be centered around the objections many have to the categorical imperative, but this is the end of the first post. Add a comment if I got something wrong or if there are further questions!


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post #3 Ethics – Utilitarianism

      For the next moral theory we look at in the ethics series, we will now look at utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a very popular and well-known moral theory because it is applied almost every day in our lives. Where other theories such as categorical imperative are used occasionally in our lives, utilitarianism is used the rest of the time when making moral  decisions, almost guaranteed.       Utilitarianism tends to have different offshoots, which we will discern later, but for now we will focus on the same overall idea between every form of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that, alternatively to Kant's categorical imperative, the rightness and wrongness of an action can only be determined by the consequences of that action. Utilitarianism is a combination of three theses: hedonism, maximalism, and universalism. Hedonism is the idea that pleasure is the highest good, and as such is the only thing...
Read more

Post #7 Free Will – Hard Determinism

      One issue that is given just as much light as ethics is the debate of free will. Since the time of the original philosophers, the question has been posited as to whether the actions of man and the universe have been predestined since the original impetus, or if destiny is malleable enough that we control our own individual fates with all events being anything but  certain. The first theory that we will look at is that of hard determinism.     Hard determinism is one of two  incompatibilist theories. I ncompatibilism  is a form of theory in the free will debate which claims that free will and determinism are unable to exist simultaneously, and one is necessarily true while the other must be necessarily false. Hard determinism is the theory which states that determinism must be true and any belief in the existence of free will is false. Hard determinism views reality almost like an endless line of dominoes. One event occurs, necessitating...
Read more

Post #4 Ethics – Criticisms of Utilitarianism

      Utilitarianism is a common moral theory, used by government's and others who oversee a population of people such that their community might thrive. However, in a moral system purposed towards the pleasure of the majority, there are bound to be problems found within the system that need to be acknowledged before ruin.     Robert Nozick is one of the most notable objectors to hedonistic utilitarianism, though more of an opponent to the hedonism part than the utilitarianism part (though it is important to note that Nozick didn't necessarily believe pleasure wasn't of intrinsic value, just that it wasn't the only intrinsically valuable thing). Nozick was the creator of one of the most difficult challenges hedonism faces today: the Experience Machine. In Nozick's Experience Machine, imagine that a machine exists that, when activated, will give the user all the experience they could want, meaning if they want all...
Read more