Which of the Following Is a Kantian Approach to Helping a Family in Need?
KANTIAN ETHICS
German language philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was an opponent of utilitarianism.� Leading 20thursday century proponent of Kantianism:� Professor Elizabeth Anscombe (1920-2001).
Basic Summary :� Kant, different Manufacturing plant, believed that certain types of actions (including murder, theft, and lying) were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the activity would bring about more than happiness than the alternative.� For Kantians, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we determine to act:� (i) Can I rationally will that everyone act every bit I advise to human action?� If the answer is no, then we must not perform the activeness.� (ii)� Does my action respect the goals of human being beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes?� Over again, if the answer is no, and so we must not perform the activeness.� (Kant believed that these questions were equivalent).
Kant�s theory is an example of a deontological moral theory�according to these theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does non depend on their consequences just on whether they fulfill our duty.
Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he referred to it equally The Chiselled Imperative.� The CI determines what our moral duties are.
the following is an exerpt from the notes of Professor Eric Barnes ...
Morality and imperatives : What does it mean for 1'south duty to be adamant by the categorical imperative?
What is an imperative? An imperative is a control. So, "Pay your taxes!" is an imperative, as are "Stop kicking me!" and "Don't kill animals!"
Hypothetical Imperatives :� these imperatives command conditionally on your having a relevant desire.� East.grand. �If you want to become to medical school, written report biological science in college.�� If you don�t want to go to medical schoolhouse, this command doesn�t apply to you.� Some other instance, your father says, "if you are hungry, then go eat something!" - if you aren't hungry, and then you are free to ignore the command.
Categorical Imperatives:� These command unconditionally.� E.g. �Don�t cheat on your taxes.�� Even if you lot want to cheat and doing so would serve your interests, y'all may not cheat.
�
What is the connexion between morality and categorical imperatives? Morality must exist based on the categorical imperative because morality is such that you are commanded by it, and is such that y'all cannot opt out of information technology or claim that information technology does non utilize to you.
How does the chiselled imperative work? The categorical imperative has three unlike formulations. That is to say, there are three dissimilar ways of saying what information technology is. Kant claims that all three do in fact say the same thing, but information technology is currently disputed whether this is true. The 2nd formulation is the easiest to empathize, but the first one is most clearly a categorical imperative. Here is the start formulation.
1) Offset formulation (The Formula of Universal Law): "Deed only on that saying through which you can at the same time volition that information technology should get a universal constabulary [of nature]."
a) What is a maxim? A maxim is the rule or principle on which you act. For example, I might get in my maxim to give at to the lowest degree equally much to charity each year as I spend on eating out, or I might make information technology my maxim but to do what will benefit some fellow member of my family.
b) Basic thought: The control states, crudely, that y'all are not allowed to practice anything yourself that y'all would not be willing to allow everyone else to do as well. Y'all are not allowed to make exceptions for yourself. For instance, if y'all expect other people to keep their promises, then you lot are obligated to keep your own promises.
c) More particular: More accurately, it commands that every maxim you lot human action on must be such that y'all are willing to make it the example that everyone always act on that saying when in a similar state of affairs. For example, if I wanted to prevarication to get something I wanted, I would have to be willing to brand it the case that anybody always lied to get what they wanted - only if this were to happen no i would e'er believe you, so the prevarication would not work and you would not go what you lot wanted. So, if you willed that such a maxim (of lying) should go a universal law, and so you lot would thwart your goal - thus, it is impermissible to lie, according to the chiselled imperative. It is impermissible because the simply way to prevarication is to brand an exception for yourself.
Kant on Moral Worth
The Moral Worth of Persons : Kant also has something to say well-nigh what makes someone a skilful person. Keep in mind that Kant intends this to go along with the rest of his theory, and what ane'southward duty is would be determined by the categorical imperative. However, one tin can treat this as a separate theory to some extent, and consider that 1's duty is determined by another standard. Keep in heed that what is said below has to do with how one evaluates people, non actions. A person's actions are correct or wrong, a person is morally worthy or lacks moral worth (i.e., is morally base). A person'south actions determine her moral worth, just there is more to this than merely seeing if the actions are right or wrong.
a) Background concepts: This chart should assistance explain the nuts.
����������� 
b) The basic idea: Kant argues that a person is good or bad depending on the motivation of their deportment and non on the goodness of the consequences of those actions. By "motivation" I mean what caused you to do the activeness (i.e., your reason for doing information technology). Kant argues that i can accept moral worth (i.e., be a expert person) just if ane is motivated by morality. In other words, if a person's emotions or desires cause them to do something, and so that activeness cannot requite them moral worth. This may audio odd, but there is adept reason to concur with Kant.
c) Why motivation is what matters: Imagine that I win the lottery and I'm wondering what to do with the money. I look around for what would be the most fun to do with information technology: buy a yacht, travel in outset class around the world, get that knee functioning, etc.. I decide that what would be really fun is to give the money to charity and to bask that special feeling yous get from making people happy, so I give all my lottery money away. According to Kant, I am not a morally worthy person because I did this, subsequently all I just did any I thought would be the most fun and there is nil admirable virtually such a selfish pursuit. Information technology was just lucky for those charities that I thought giving away money was fun. Moral worth just comes when you lot do something considering you know that it is your duty and you would practise it regardless of whether you liked it.
d) Why consequences don't thing: A reason why Kant is non concerned with consequences can be seen in the following instance. Imagine two people out together drinking at a bar late one dark, and each of them decides to bulldoze home very boozer. They bulldoze in dissimilar directions through the eye of nowhere. One of them encounters no one on the road, and then gets dwelling house without incident regardless of totally reckless driving. The other drunk is non so lucky and encounters someone walking at night, and kills the pedestrian with the car. Kant would argue that based on these actions both drunks are equally bad, and the fact that one person got lucky does non make them any ameliorate than the other boozer. After all, they both made the same choices, and nix within either one's control had anything to practise with the difference in their actions. The same reasoning applies to people who act for the right reasons. If both people act for the right reasons, and so both are morally worthy, fifty-fifty if the actions of 1 of them happen to pb to bad consequences by bad luck.
e) The wrong interpretation: Consider the instance described above almost the lottery winner giving to charity. Imagine that he gives to a clemency and he intends to save hundreds of starving children in a remote village. The nutrient arrives in the village but a group of rebels finds out that they have food, and they come to steal the food and finish upwards killing all the children in the village and the adults as well. The intended result of feeding starving children was expert, and the actual consequences were bad. Kant is not proverb that we should look at the intended consequences in order to make a moral evaluation. Kant is challenge that regardless of intended or actual consequences, moral worth is properly assessed past looking at the motivation of the action, which may be selfish even if the intended consequences are good.
f) Kant does not forestall happiness: A careful reader may detect that in the example above i of the selfish person'southward intended consequences is to make himself happy, and so it might seem to exist that intended consequences exercise affair. One might call up Kant is challenge that if ane of my intentions is to make myself happy, that my action is not worthy. This is a mistake. The consequence of making myself happy is a good consequence, even according to Kant. Kant clearly thinks that people being happy is a good affair. There is zilch incorrect with doing something with an intended consequence of making yourself happy, that is not selfishness. Yous tin get moral worth doing things that yous enjoy, but the reason you are doing them cannot be that you savor them, the reason must be that they are required by duty. As well, there is a tendency to retrieve that Kant says it is always incorrect to practise something that just causes your own happiness, like buying an water ice cream cone. This is non the case. Kant thinks that you ought to do things to make yourself happy every bit long as you brand sure that they are not immoral (i.east., contrary to duty), and that you would refrain from doing them if they were immoral. Getting water ice cream is not immoral, and so you can become ahead and do it. Doing it will not make you a morally worthy person, but information technology won't brand you a bad person either. Many deportment which are permissible merely not required by duty are neutral in this mode.
g) Summary: According to Kant a good person is someone who always does their duty because information technology is their duty. Information technology is fine if they enjoy doing it, but information technology must exist the case that they would do it even if they did not relish it. The overall theme is that to be a practiced person you must be good for goodness sake.
terminate of excerpt...
A Trouble for Kant�s Theory
����������� Kant�s view is that lying is always wrong.� His argument for this is summarized by James Rachels every bit follows:
(1)� We should practise only those actions that conform to rules that we could will be adopted universally.
(2)� If we were to lie, we would be following the rule �It is permissible to lie.�
(three)� This rule could not be adopted universally, because it would be cocky-defeating:� people would end assertive i another, and then it would practice no good to prevarication.
(4)� Therefore, we should not lie.
����������� The trouble with this argument is that we can prevarication without only following the dominion �It is permissible to prevarication.�� Instead, we might be following a rule that pertains only to specific circumstances, like �It is permissible to lie when doing then will salve a life.�� This rule can be fabricated a universal law without contradiction. �Subsequently all, it is not equally though people would stop believing each other merely considering information technology is known that people lie when doing so will relieve lives.� For ane thing, that state of affairs rarely comes up�people could still be telling the truth nearly all of the fourth dimension. �Even the taking of human life could be justified under certain circumstances.� Take self-defence force, for instance.� There appears to be nothing problematic with the dominion �Information technology is permissible to kill when doing and so is the only available ways of defense confronting an aggressor�.
����������� It is not necessary to interpret Kant�southward theory as prohibiting lying in all circumstances (equally Kant did).� Maxims (and the universal laws that event from them) tin can be specified in a style that reflects all of the relevant features of the state of affairs.� Consider the case of the Inquiring Murderer (as described in the text).� Suppose that you are in that situation and you lie to the murderer.� Instead of understanding the universalized saying as �Anybody E'er lies� nosotros can sympathise it as �Everyone always lies in social club to protect innocents from stalkers�.� This maxim seems to pass the exam of the chiselled imperative.� Unfortunately, complicated maxims make Kant�south theory becomes more hard to understand and apply.
Process for determining whether a proposed activeness violates CI1:
�(1)� Formulate the proverb:
I am to practice x in circumstances y in order to bring about z.
Case:
I am to prevarication on a loan awarding when I am in severe financial difficulty and there is no other way to obtain funds, in order to ease the strain on my finances.
(2)� Generalize the saying into a police of nature:
Everyone always does x in circumstances y in order to bring virtually z.
Anybody always lies on a loan application when he is in severe fiscal difficulty and there is no other fashion to obtain funds, in order to ease the strain on his finances.
(iii)� Figure out the perturbed social earth (PSW), that is, what the world would be like if this law of nature were added to existing laws of nature and things had a chance to reach equilibrium. �� Note: assume that afterward the adjustment to equilibrium the new law is common knowledge -- everyone knows that information technology is true, anybody knows that everyone knows, etc.
Two questions:
Q1:� Could I rationally deed on my proverb in the PSW?
This is the �Contradiction in Conception Test�
Q2:� Could I rationally choose the PSW as i in which I would be a fellow member?
This is the �Contradiction in the Will Test�
The Kantian evaluation rule is this: we must be able to reply yeah to both questions for the maxim to be acceptable. If we get a no answer to either, nosotros must reject the proverb and try to discover another ane on which to deed.
The mendacious promise (Kant�s 2d example)
This is the example we take been using in spelling out the procedure. The maxim fails considering I must answer "no" to the first question: I could not rationally act on the saying in the PSW. There are ii reasons Kant states for this: (ane) promising and (ii) the end to be attained by it would exist impossible, since no one would believe what was promised him but would laugh at all such utterances equally being vain pretenses.� Lying on a loan awarding would non get u.s. anywhere in a world where anybody always lied when under similar circumstances.
The second part of the examination is the "contradiction in the will test." Information technology catches those maxims whose existence as a universal law of nature is conceivable without contradiction, but which cannot be willed to be such without contradiction. The next example is supposed to illustrate a failure of this examination.
Indifference to the needs of others (Kant�due south fourth example)
Hither the maxim is something like the post-obit:
In order to advance my own interests, I volition not do anything to help others in demand unless I take something to gain from doing so.
The PSW volition comprise a law of nature of the form:
To advance his own interests, anybody e'er refrains from helping others in need unless he has something to proceeds from doing and so.
Now Kant would say that there is no trouble in conceiving such a PSW (in fact, those of a cynical bent might think that the PSW is no different from the existing world). Applying the first question of the procedure, we run into that nosotros cannot answer no to the showtime question: it would be rational in the PSW to follow the maxim if everyone else is doing the same, considering in that world everyone is indifferent to the needs of others, so the best way for you to advance your interests is to be likewise indifferent (for you will non gain anything through reciprocity of others by parting from the maxim).
However, according to Kant the second part of the test fails: I could not rationally choose the PSW, because "a will which resolved itself in this way would contradict itself, inasmuch every bit cases might oft arise in which one would have need of the love and sympathy of others and in which he would deprive himself, by such a law of nature springing from his own will, of all hope of the aid he wants for himself (423)." That is, according to Kant it is not rational to choose a world in which yous would not be helped if you were in need and no one was in a position to gain by helping you lot.
]
Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties
If a maxim flunks Q1 (see above) then we have a perfect duty to refrain from acting on that saying.
If a proverb flunks Q2 (run across to a higher place) but non Q1 , then we have an imperfect duty to refrain from interim on that maxim.
-Our Perfect duties (duties of justice) are negative in that they require that nosotros never perform certain types of actions, and can only be fulfilled in very specific ways.
-Our Imperfect duties (duties of virtue) are positive in that they crave that we sometimes perform certain types of actions.
Illustration :� We accept a perfect duty not to murder.� This means that we must never murder under any circumstances.� We have an imperfect duty to help the needy.� This means that we should do so on occasion, where this does not conflict with our perfect duties.
Examples:
Duties����������� ����������������������� Perfect���������� ����������������������������������� Imperfect
To Others ���������������������������� tell truth���������������������������������������������� aid others in need
don�t break promises���������������������� assistance others achieve goals
����������������������������������������������� don�t steal, murder, enslave
To Self���������� ����������������������� no suicide or�������������
develop talents
����������������������������������������������� other forms of self-destruction
According to Kant, perfect duties (duties of justice) can appropriately exist enforced by means of the public, juridical use of compulsion, and the residue are imperfect duties (duties of virtue), which are fit subjects for moral assessment just non coercion.� (Recall that Jan Narveson follows this stardom in his paper �Feeding the Hungry�)
�
Sensat
[
A case written report for comparison Kant�s theory with Utilitarianism
Martha, equally a habitation-service medical care volunteer, has cared for George through the final weeks of his fatal illness. Simply before he died, George told Martha where a large sum of money he had accumulated was stored. He asked her to see that the coin was given to the Society for Protection confronting Alien Control of the Earth (Infinite). Since George's illness did non affect his mental chapters, she agreed. But now that he has died, she is considering using the money to support the activities of the local Hunger Chore Force, an organization that provides donated food to those who demand it. George has no surviving friends or relatives, and no one else knows about the money. He left no written will.
Kantian assay
To run this case through the CI procedure, nosotros commencement demand to place Martha's maxim. To do this, we await at the description of the situation and see if nosotros can make up one's mind which sort of principle Martha would sincerely formulate equally justification of her action. Recall that all maxims can be put into the form:
I am to practice x in circumstances y in society to promote z
And then nosotros tin determine the saying by specifying what should go in for x, y and z. The following substitutions seem plausible:
x = break a deathbed hope
y = when doing then will permit me to exercise much more than good for humanity
z = the goal of increasing homo welfare
So the three steps of the CI procedure will look like this:
Codify the maxim : I am to pause a deathbed promise when doing and then will allow me to do much more expert for humanity, in society to promote the goal of increasing human welfare.
Generalize the proverb into a law of nature : Everyone e'er breaks deathbed promises when doing so allows him to do much more good for humanity, in order to promote the goal of increasing human welfare.
Figure out the PSW : In the PSW, it will be common knowledge that people break deathbed promises whenever they think they can do much more good for humanity
Kickoff question: Would it be rational to adopt and act on my proverb in the PSW? No, because in the PSW no one would enquire for deathbed promises, because anybody would know that they are not genuine commitments. The maxim would non be an effective policy for promoting human welfare.
Since the answer to the first question is "No," Martha should not deed on her maxim, since information technology fails the "contradiction in conception" exam.
Utilitarian assay
The steps here are as follows:
Specify the options
Specify possible consequences for each option
For each option, estimate the probability of each of its consequences
For each choice, estimate the "utility" of each of its consequences
Identify the best prospect
It seems that the options Martha faces are these:
Keep the promise
Requite the coin to the Hunger Task Force
The following tabular array specifies probabilities and utilities for each consequence of each option:
| Pick | Consequences | Probability | Utility (impact on human welfare) |
| Proceed hope | SPACE gets the money and spends it on its ain programs | Certainty | Low |
| Give coin to HTF | HTF uses money to feed many hungry people | High | Very loftier |
| Activity is discovered | Low | Somewhat lower than |
Nosotros tin can use the information in this tabular array to identify the best prospect. Since keeping the hope is sure to have simply a pocket-sized impact on human welfare, whereas giving the money to HTF is very likely to have a much bigger impact, with only a small gamble of producing an issue that is just somewhat worse than the certain event of keeping the hope, giving the money to HTF is the best prospect. Consequently it is the option that utilitarianism recommends.
]
Recall that there were two formulations of the Categorical Imperative:
Formulation I, the Formula of Universal Law [CI1]:� �Act simply on that maxim through which yous can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.�
Formulation II, The Formula of the Stop in Itself [CI2]:� �So human activity every bit to treat humanity, both in your own person, and in the person of every other, always at the same fourth dimension every bit an finish, never only as a means.�
So far, we have been discussing CI1.� Now, nosotros will briefly turn our attending to CI2.
To use someone equally a mere ways is to involve them in a scheme of activity to which they could not in principle consent.
In typical transactions (due east.thousand. the substitution of money for goods) people apply each other equally means simply not as mere means.� Each person assumes the other is acting out of his or her own motives and is non just a matter to be manipulated.
But in cases of promise breaking, charade, and compulsion (to name a few) people act wrongly in using each other as mere means.� For example:� if George makes a promise to Joanne with the intention of breaking information technology, and Joanne accepts, then Joanne has been deceived as to George�southward true proverb. �Joanne cannot in principle consent to his scheme of action since she doesn�t fifty-fifty know what it is.� She is beingness used as a mere means.� Likewise, i cannot consent to compulsion because consent requires having a pick.
To treat someone as an end requires that one non utilise him or her equally mere means.� Across that, nosotros have a duty to promote others plans and maxims by sharing some of their ends, thus respecting others ends in the fullest manner.� But people�due south wants are many, diverse and often incompatible, so we cannot help anybody.
Thus, we take ii primary duties that derive from the CI2:
(1)� the perfect duty to act on no maxims that utilise people as mere ways.
(2)� the imperfect duty to human activity on some maxims that foster peoples� ends.
Kant believed CI1 and CI2 to be equivalent; he thought that each unsaid exactly the aforementioned duties.� Nosotros won�t concern ourselves with whether this is true (though it is plausible that they would have the aforementioned implications for the cases we have examined).
Source: https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian%20ethics.htm
0 Response to "Which of the Following Is a Kantian Approach to Helping a Family in Need?"
ارسال یک نظر