Kant's Deontological Ethics PDF

# Lesson 4 Kant's Deontological Ethics: The Duty Framework ## Intended Learning Outcomes: - **Articulate the duty ethical framework** - **Differentiate what is legally right from what is morally right** ## Activity 1. Think of at least an act which you can at the same time will that it should b...

# Lesson 4 Kant's Deontological Ethics: The Duty Framework ## Intended Learning Outcomes: - **Articulate the duty ethical framework** - **Differentiate what is legally right from what is morally right** ## Activity 1. Think of at least an act which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. 2. Can borrowing money with no intention to pay be an example? ## Analysis What are the consequences on you, on the lender and on others when you borrow money with no intention to pay back? - **Can borrowing money with no intention to pay back be universalized as a maxim?** ## Abstraction - **Kant's Deontological Ethics** Kant's Ethics is now referred to as **deontological**. The term deontological has its root from the Greek "deon" which means "duty." Hence deontological ethics focuses on "duty, obligation, and rights" instead of consequences or ends. An act that proceeds from the will which wills it because it can be the will of all is a right action. Willing and doing the will of all is a duty, regardless of the consequences. *The following clarifies Kant's duty-based approach:* **The duty-based approach**, sometimes called deontological ethics, argued that doing what is right is not about the consequences of our actions (something over which we ultimately have no control) but about having the proper intention in performing the action. The ethical action is one taken from duty, that is, it is done precisely because it is our obligation to perform the action. Ethical obligations are the same for all rational creatures (they are universal), and knowledge of what these obligations entail is arrived at by discovering rules of behavior that are not contradicted by reason. **Kant's famous formula for discovering our ethical duty is known as the "categorical imperative."** It has a number of different versions, but Kant believed they all amounted to the same imperative. **The most basic form of the imperative is:** *'Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.'* So, for example, lying is unethical because we could not universalize a maxim that said "One should always lie." Such a maxim would render all speeches meaningless. We can, however, universalize the maxim, "Always speak truthfully," without running into a logical contradiction. *(Notice that the duty-based approach says nothing about how easy or difficult it would be to carry out these maxims, only that it is our duty as rational creatures to do so.)* In acting according to a law that we have discovered to be rational according to our own universal reason, we are acting autonomously *(in a self-regulating fashion)*, and thus are bound by duty, a duty we have given ourselves as rational creatures. We thus freely choose *(we will)* to bind ourselves to the moral law. *For Kant, choosing to obey the universal moral law is the very nature of acting ethically*. *(Mackinon, B. and Fiola A., 2015)* The example, borrowing money with no intention to pay back, cannot be universalized and therefore cannot be ethical. If this becomes universalized, there will be no more lenders and all banks will close. ## The Duty Framework **Correspondingly, the duty-based approach can be applied as a framework for ethical decision making:** * **In the Duty framework, we focus on the duties and obligations that we have in a given situation, and consider what ethical obligations we have and what things we should never do. Ethical conduct is defined by doing one's duties and doing the right thing, and the goal is performing the correct action.** This framework has the advantage of creating a system of rules that has consistent expectations of all people; if an action is ethically correct or a duty is required, it would apply to every person in a given situation. This even-handedness encourages treating everyone with equal dignity and respect. This framework also focuses on following moral rules or duty regardless of outcome, so it allows for the possibility that one might have acted ethically, even if there is a bad result. Therefore, this framework works best in situations where there is a sense of obligation or in those in which we need to consider why duty or obligation mandates or forbids certain courses of action. However, this framework also has its limitations. First, it can appear cold and impersonal, in that it might require actions which are known to produce harms, even though they are strictly in keeping with, a particular moral rule. It also does not provide a way to determine which duty we should follow if we are presented with a situation in which two or more duties conflict. It can also be rigid in applying the notion of duty to everyone regardless of personal situation. ## Kant's theory of right According to Kant, the "universal principle of right" is that "an action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law" *(6:230)*. In other words, your exercise freely whatever rights you have on your property but only in accordance with universal law. Universal law means a maxim that can be the maxim of all. You can use, dispose, enjoy its fruits, but only in such a way that you do not violate the rights of others. This exercise of a right bearing in mind the obligation to respect the right of others is tantamount to good faith or good will. ## Legally and Morally Right It appears that in Kant, what is legal must be at the same time moral. An action is legally right if it is at the same time in accordance with universal law, that is, in accordance with the categorical imperative. In another context, what is legal is not necessarily moral. For instance, what is legal is limited to compliance with law, be it laws of a state or country; but being moral may not be just following the law, but doing more than what the law requires like responding to the need of another. Paying an employee his minimum wage is legal; but paying more than his minimum wage because of care and concern of his needs is more than what is legal. ## Good Will Kant says, "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a good will." Kant's criteria or framework of what is right or wrong is "good will". An act is said to be right or wrong depending on whether it is done with or without good will. The rightness or wrongness of an action depends on one's good will or intentions. *The usual criticism, or weakness cited, regarding this concept is that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Is good will enough?* ## Categorical Imperative: To serve the will as a principle Kant has two (2) versions of the categorical imperative. The first version states "I never to act other than so that I could will that my maxim should become a universal law." If one cannot wish or want that a certain rule or maxim becomes the maxim of all, that it is not right to follow it. For instance, one cannot will that "thou shalt steal" becomes a rule to be followed by all because others may ultimately and steal his property. One cannot wish that "killing" becomes the maxim of all because he would not of course wish that someone will come to kill him. The second version is as follows: "Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end." Treating the another merely as a means to an end means equating him to a mere instrument, a tool, an object which is cast aside after use, or can be sold or exchanged when no longer needed, or has value only for as long as it is useful. Such act makes one a "user." In contemporary philosophy, like Marcel or Buber's term, it is treating the other as an IT, a thing. That's why they call the act as "thing-ization." In the parable of "Hope for the Flowers" by Trina Paulus, Stripe's climbing the caterpillar's pillar to reach to top, where all that could be seen as a reward of climbing are other caterpillar's pillars, was no other way than stepping on other caterpillars as a means of moving up higher. ## Ought implies Can. This means that If and only if we can or are free to act in certain ways can we be commanded to do so. This is one more moral principle ascribed to Kant, derived from two passages in his works. One is stated as follows: "For if the moral law commands that we ought to be better human beings now, it inescapably follows that we must be capable of being better human beings." Another one states as follows: "The action to which the "ought" applies must indeed be possible under natural conditions." The Situation Ethics author, Joseph Fletcher, used this maxim several times to illustrate his situationism. In full statement the saying would be, "If I ought to do something, then I can do it." By way of logical analysis, the statement means, one's ability to do something is a necessary condition for his being obliged to do it. In Fletcher's terms, "you are obliged to do only what you can where you are." ## KEY TAKEAWAYS - What is ethical according to Kant's deontological framework is the action taken from duty, that is, it is done precisely because it is our obligation to perform the action. Ethical obligations are the same for all rational creatures (universal), and knowledge of what these obligations entail is arrived at by discovering rules of behavior that are not contradicted by reason. - You act ethically when you apply Kant's famous formula for ethical duty known as the "categorical imperative." The most basic form of the imperative is: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." - You act ethically also when you apply the second version of the "categorical imperative," "Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end." - An action is legally right if it is at the same time in accordance with universal law, that is, in accordance with the categorical imperative. - Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law. - An act is said to be right or wrong depending on whether or not it is done with or without good will. The rightness or wrongness of an action depends on one's good will or intentions. - An action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law. - Ought implies can. One is obliged only to do what he/she can where he/she is. - Your ability to perform an obligation is determined by your degree of freedom. One can no more be responsible than what he can knowingly, freely, and voluntarily do.