Kantian ethics:

          ♦Deontological, absolute

Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives:

Hypothetical: if i do this, i will get this for example, if i give to Charity, i will feel good.

         Cateogorical imperative: i ought... for example i ought to give to charity (regardless   of any extrinsic/intrinsic reward/value)

Formulations of Categorical Imperatives (Kant assumes we are free, autonomous agents)

1.(Universalisability): Act only in accordance with a universal maxim (will that whatever you do could be universalised)To work out if you should follow a maxim, make it into a universal rule. I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.

2. Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature.Humans should be treated as ends, never as ends for a means.

3. Live as if in a Kingdom of Ends (Ends in themselves): So act asto treat humanity, whether in yourown person or in that of any other,in every case as an end in itself, never as means only(Every other person is an end, a free autonomous agent.

• Something is good only when someone carries out their duty to do it – so goodness is based on doing the correct thing.
• Kant believed that there was nothing that could be said to be good except a good will
• We are to do our duty and we must be rewarded for our actions. The summum bonum is the place where our happiness and our virtue (good actions through doing our duty) come together. Some people are morally good and aren't happy so there must be an afterlife in order to achieve that which we are duty bound to do.

Strengths:

♥Straightforward and based on reason

♥Clear criteria and the moral value of an action comes from the intrinsic value of the action not from consequences which cannot always be accurately predicted

♥Gives us rules that apply to everyone and command us to respect human life

♥Clear that morality is doing one's duty, not just following feelings/inclinations

♥It aims to treat everyone fairly and justly and so corrects utilitarian assumption that minority can suffer so long as majority are happy

♥Sees humans as being of intrinsic worth and dignity as rational creatures- humans cannot be enslaved/exploited- basic declaration of Human Rights.

♥Universal- treats everyone equally

Weaknesses:

♦Abstract and not always easily applied to moral/ethical situations. Tells you types of actions are good/bad, but doesn't tell you what to do in particular situations. Not easily applied to complexity of life for example would you tell a murderer where his victim was?

♦Can use the Universalisability rule to justify anything

♦Result of action is quite important in ethical decision making

♦Only works if everyone has the same view of purpose and of end of humans.

♦Sometimes human life has to be sacrificed to stop others or more people being killed or suffering. Greater good.

♦Naturalistic fallacy- can't jump from an "is" to an "ought"

Application: The Good Will – The only good thing was the good will, a will that did its duty of following the right course of action. “A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes… it is… good in itself.” Kant said that no outcome was inherently good – pleasure could result from evil acts like child abuse, for example. Also, no virtues were inherently good – kindness could lead to wrong actions like buying cigarettes for an underage child. Deontology – Duty: there is an objective moral law that it is our duty to follow.  If I couldn’t act freely, I wouldn’t have a sense that I ought to do certain actions.  Accepting that something is a good action presumes that the world is designed so that doing good leads to happiness, so there must be a God.  I cannot achieve the good in this lifetime, so there must be an afterlife. Just because I feel free, doesn’t mean I am.

Kant, War, Peace and Justice

♥Categorical Imperatives – these are rules that would be followed by any rational moral agent. They are duties – you should do your duty because it is your duty.

♥Moral absolutes are easier to follow than consequentialism – you don’t have to think about whether to lie, steal or kill, as these would be contrary to your duty.

Consequences aren’t predictable or calculable, and aren’t good in themselves.