Kant's Ethics (PHLA11) PDF

PHL A11 Introduction to Ethics September 21 Immanuel Kant continued ● Recap of: Lecture plan ○ Idea 1: a good will ○ Idea 2: the categorical imperative ● Idea 3: never lie ○ First AI-based writing exercise 2 For Kant, the only thing that is unconditionally (i.e. always) good is a “good will...

PHL A11 Introduction to Ethics September 21 Immanuel Kant continued ● Recap of: Lecture plan ○ Idea 1: a good will ○ Idea 2: the categorical imperative ● Idea 3: never lie ○ First AI-based writing exercise 2 For Kant, the only thing that is unconditionally (i.e. always) good is a “good will.” Virtues like understanding, courage, and self-control, or “gifts of fortune” like wealth, health, and even happiness are conditionally good: they are good only when guided by a good will. 3 For Kant, to have a good will one must act only in “conformity with universal ends.” This means following the categorical imperative, Kant test for deciding whether any action is morally right or wrong. We ask ourselves whether we could will (choose) our maxim (the intention or rule behind our actions) as a universal law (something that everyone does in similar circumstances). If not, then acting on that maxim is morally wrong. 4 The underlying idea is something like: don’t make an exception of yourself. If you want to able to do something, but you wouldn’t (or couldn’t) wish for everyone to do it, then you are placing yourself above the rest of humanity. Kant compares the categorical imperative to the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 5 “We must be able to will that a maxim of our action become a universal law: this is the canon of moral appraisal of action in general. Some actions are so constituted that their maxim cannot even be thought without contradiction as a universal law of nature, far less could one will that it should become such” (75). 6 Kant offers a second way of thinking about the categorical imperative: respect people as ends-in-themselves, don’t use then as means to your own ends. Don’t deceive, coerce, or manipulate people in order to get what you want, or even to do what you think is good. Instead, respect people as individuals who matter for their own sake and are entitled to act on their own will. Optional reading: Kant discusses the same four examples in terms of this second version of the categorical imperative. Kant claims that this second version of the categorical imperative gives us the same rules as the first version: “act only accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (73). One way to think about it: to will the maxim “use this person merely as a means to my own ends” as a universal law is to will a world in which people (including you) are treated as mere “things” to be disposed of. 7 Consider a variation on the Trolley Problem known as “the fat man.” In this scenario, the only way to stop a runaway trolley from killing five people is to push another person (the fat man) onto the tracks. Why would Kant say that we must not push the fat man? 8 Kant’s legacy Many philosophers think that Kant was on to something in arguing that ethics is about following rules derived from reason, rather than social custom or religion. Many have take inspiration from Kant’s insistence that each person should be treated as an “end” and not merely as a “means.” This idea has been developed into Kantian theories of: ➔ Human rights ➔ Animal rights (by arguing that some animals should not be used as mere means, e.g. as food) 9 Kant’s legacy Yet many have found Kant’s ethics far too strict. In an article for Philosophy & Public Affairs, philosopher Christine Korsgaard (a Kantian) says: “One of the great difficulties with Kant's moral philosophy is that it seems to imply that our moral obligations leave us powerless in the face of evil. Kant's theory sets a high ideal of conduct and tells us to live up to that ideal regardless of what other persons are doing. The results may be very bad. But Kant says that the [moral] law ‘remains in full force, because it commands categorically’ (Korsgaard 1896, 325). This “difficulty” is clearest in Kant’s discussion of lying. 10 Kant’s big idea 3: Never lie 11 Kant thinks that it is never morally acceptable to lie. Why not? Follow the logic of the categorical imperative: ○ If I’m considering whether to lie in order to achieve my goals, I have to ask whether I can also will that everyone lies to achieve their goals (as if this were a law of nature, like gravity). ○ But lying is only advantageous when people generally expect each other to tell the truth, because only then can we fool people into believing a lie. If everyone lied, no one would believe anything anyone said, so my lie wouldn’t fool anyone. ○ So, to lie is to make an exception for myself, following a maxim (“I will lie to achieve my goals”) that I cannot will as a universal law. 12 But, you might say: surely we can imagine situations in which lying is justified! This objection was raised by the French philosopher Benjamin Constant. “The moral principle ‘it is a duty to tell the truth’ would, if taken unconditionally and singly, make any society impossible. We have proof of this in the very direct consequences drawn from this principle by a German philosopher, who goes so far as to maintain that it would be a crime to lie to a murderer who asked us whether a friend of ours whom he is pursuing has taken refuge in our house” (quoted by Kant at 611). 13 In a reply to Constant (“On a supposed right to lie from philanthropy”), Kant doubles down. Yes, you must not lie to a murderer who knocks on your door and asks where your friend is. Why not? Kant gives two kinds of reasons: ➔ Even when lying doesn’t harm a particular individual (or even if it helps them), it always harms “humanity generally, inasmuch as it makes the source of right unusable” (612). ➔ You’re only responsible for telling the truth, not for what others do with the truth. But if you lie, and it backfires (e.g. it helps the murderer find his victim), that’s on you. 14 Kant thinks that you may refuse to answer the murderer. But you must not lie: “To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is… a sacred command of reason prescribing unconditionally, one not to be restricted by any conveniences” (613). 15 Some Kantians think that Kant makes a mistake here. They argue that the categorical imperative does permit us to act on the maxim: “lie in order to save someone’s life.” Can’t we will that maxim as a universal law? (But can we universalize the more general maxim: “lie in order to achieve my goals”? This is a difficulty in interpreting Kant: how specific is the maxim allowed to be?) But suppose you were asked to defend Kant’s views on lying. What would you say? 16 First AI-based writing exercise Well, that’s exactly what I’m asking you to do for your first writing exercise: defend Kant’s strict rule against lying. More precisely, I’ve given ChatGPT the following prompt: Write me an essay arguing that Kant is right that we should never lie. Your task is to turn ChatGPT’s output into a better essay. 17 First AI-based writing exercise Here are five qualities that we look for in a philosophy essay: 1. There is a clear thesis and argument (and, for this exercise, this thesis and argument must defend Kant’s view on lying) 2. Philosophers’ ideas are presented correctly 3. Important concepts are clearly explained, with examples 4. Texts are referenced and cited 5. An objection is discussed Your task is to improve ChatGPT’s essay in each of these ways (worth one point each). You must show your improvements with Word’s “track changes” feature or by bolding your changes. You must then explain each of your improvements on the next page of the document. See the assignment on Quercus for more details. 18 Want more help with Kant? I recommend the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on Immanuel Kant. Scroll down to section 5 (including 5.1 and 5.2). You can cite this resource in your AI-based writing exercise, if you find it helpful. 19 Never lie: study questions Interpretative questions (about what the author means): How does Kant’s strict rule against lying illustrate the logic of his categorical imperative? What is Benjamin Constant’s objection to Kant, and how does Kant reply? Critical questions (about whether the author makes a good argument): Does Kant go too far here? Is it sometimes morally permissible to lie? If so, when and why? What might Kant say in response to these objections? 20 And remember: don’t cheat on your assignments. The moral law forbids it. 21