Lecture 5: Consequential Ethics &
Deontological Ethics:
Consider these quotes:
“The remarkable thing is that we really
love our neighbor as ourselves: we do
unto others as we do unto ourselves.
We hate others when we hate
ourselves. We are tolerant toward
others when we tolerate ourselves. We
forgive others when we forgive
ourselves. We are prone to sacrifice
others when we are ready to sacrifice
ourselves.” ~ Eric Hoffer
Consider these quotes:
“We can discover this meaning in life in
three different ways: (1) by doing a
deed; (2) by experiencing a value; and
(3) by suffering.” ~ Victor Frankl.
Consider these quotes:
“ Never let your sense of morals get in
the way of doing what's right.” ~ Isaac
Asimov.
“When morality comes up against
profit, it is seldom that profit loses.” ~
Shirley Chisholm
Consider these quotes:
“Actions are right in proportion as they
tend to promote happiness; wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness. By happiness is intended
pleasure and the absence of pain.” ~
John Stuart Mill
Major Ideas:

Virtue Ethics: An action is right iff it is what
the virtuous agent would do. 1. An action
is right iff it is what a virtuous agent would
do in the circumstances; 1a. A virtuous
agent is one who acts virtuously, i.e., one
who has & exercises the virtues. 2 A virtue
is a character trait a human being needs to
flourish or live well. What is essential is to
note the conceptual link between virtue &
flourishing (living well or eudaimonia).
Major Ideas:

Deontological Ethics: An action is right iff
it is in accordance with a moral rule or
principle. A moral rule is one that is(a) laid
on us by God, (b) required by natural law,
(c) laid on us by reason, (d) required by
rationality, (e) would command universal
rational acceptance, or (f) would be the
object of choice of all rational beings.
What is essential is the link between right
action, moral rule, & rationality.
Major Ideas:

Consequential Ethics: An action is right iff
it promotes the best consequences. The
best consequences are those in which
happiness is maximized. What is essential
to note is that it forges a link between
consequences & happiness.
Major Ideas:
Before we consider
consequential and
deontological
ethics, let’s explore
some other basic
terms that are
important to know:
Good ideas have good
consequences, bad ideas
have bad consequences.
What is Pluralism?
There are definite standards of right behavior but
that more than one right standard exists.
- There are several right course of action.
What is Relativism?
The theory that there are no absolute standards and
that all truth is relative to a person or culture.
- No universal moral law or norm of goodness or
rightness exists.
- What seems right to a person or group is right;
there is no higher court of appeal.
A. Relativism assumes the following:
1. The context or situational setting in which
any talk occurs influences its outcome or the
conclusions that arise from it.
2. Relativism leads to the conclusion that the
situational character of all conversations have
no access to a standpoint from which we
could reach conclusions about what is
absolute or universally right or wrong, good
or evil, just or unjust.
Relativism assumes the following:
3. Moral relativism declares that
assertions about the right and the good,
as well as laws or principles that guide
human moral behavior are contextually
determined.
3a. Cultural Relativism:
A form of pluralism, this theory holds that different
standards of right and wrong arise in different
cultures. Within a given culture there are distinct
standards, but these standards may vary from
culture to culture.
- No culture is in a position to make ethical
judgments about the behaviors of other
cultures.
- Ex. One culture may have a prohibition against
slavery, whereas another culture does not. In this
view, slavery is right for the one culture but wrong
for the other.
3b. Individual Relativism:
A form of pluralism, individual relativism is the
doctrine that states that what is right depends on the
view of a specific individual.
Ex. If a lady believes that extramarital affairs are
morally permissible but her husband does not, then
extramarital affairs are right for her, but wrong for
him.
In contrast, what is Absolutism?
There are definite and universal standards of
ethical behavior, that we can know what they
are, & that all people have an obligation to
act on them.
a. Believed to be standards which are dictated or
generated by human reason (Kantian ethics ).
b. These ethical standards are either “religious” in
nature (e.g., special revelation; the Bible.).
3c. A Problem of Relativist
Theories:
A. They seem unable to account to how strongly
people feel about certain immoral acts.
Ex. If a Nazi soldier believes that torturing Jewish
children is morally permissible, can we only say that
such behavior is right for him but that it is not right for
us?
B. They are unable to offer a strong account for
justice vs. injustice; good vs. evil, right. vs
wrong; it is counter-intuitive.
3c. A Problem of Relativist
Theories:
C.
Unlivable and inconsistent with
reality.
Disastrous Effects of Relativism According
to John Piper (Christian Thought):









Relativism commits treason against God;
Relativism cultivates duplicity (dishonesty).
Relativism conceals doctrinal defects.
Relativism cloaks greed with flattery.
Relativism cloaks pride in the guise of humility.
Relativism enslaves people.
Relativism leads to a brutal totalitarianism.
Relativism silences personal identity.
Relativism poisons personal character.
Let’s now turn to consequential
ethics:
Consequential Ethics:
We choose the actions that bring about the best
outcomes. There are many kinds of consequential
forms of ethics. Let’s consider the following:
- Egoism: we should always act to maximize our
own individual interests.
A. Consequential Ethics:
We choose the actions that
bring about the best outcomes:
- Egoism: we should always act to maximize our own
individual interests.
- Utilitarianism: we should act to maximize the happiness
of all affected by the action.
A closer look at Utilitarianism:

This theory that holds that an act is
right or wrong according to the
utility or value of its consequences.

An act that produces more good
than harm has greater value than
act that produces more harm than
good.
A closer look at Utilitarianism:

Utilitarianism believe in the value of ethical laws in
helping people determine which action will
probably bring about the greatest good for the
greatest number of people.

While they are not against laws or values
(antinomians), they are not absolutists either.

Every act is judged by its results, not by it intrinsic
and universal value.
A closer look at Utilitarianism:

In order to do determine the best consequence,
some argue that you must add up the happiness
in one person and then multiply the total
happiness in the total number of people and
subtract the total pain.


If the result is positive then the action is good.
If the result is negative then the action is bad.
A closer look at Utilitarianism:

Uses of Utilitarian Ethics in terms of Pleasure vs.
Pain (Peter Singer):
1. When we testify the safety of a new shampoo,
we drip the shampoo in concentrated form into
the eye of rabbits, causing them terrible pain.
But does shampoo leaving your hair lustrous and
manageable, sufficient to justify the infliction of so
much suffering?
A closer look at Utilitarianism:
2. The taste of a char-grilled steak, juicy and
tender, is a genuine source of pleasure. But can
this gourmet pleasure (which is not essential to
sustain our lives), and in fact may shorten our
lives by contributing to LDL levels, justify the
infliction of suffering on cattle that are raised on
crowded feedlots, and then herded into slaughter
houses?
A closer look at Utilitarianism:
3. It must be delightful to live in an elegant home, richly equipped
with a Jacuzzi and sauna in addition to having a master bedroom
suite with an entire wall-covered entertainment system. But is it
really right to spend that much on luxuries that add only a small
increase to our pleasure when the same resources could be used to
care for impoverished children living in hunger? For example, $21.00
US dollars can feed over 150 elementary students in Ghana for two
weeks (rice mixed with yams).
A closer look at Utilitarianism:
4. I purchase another
expensive “GQ suit” to
add to my already stuffed
closet-for it will bring me
pleasure. But is that
small increment of
pleasure even remotely
comparable to the
pleasure and relief of
suffering that would result
if I took that same money
and purchased clothes to
orphan children or a
threadbare family?
A closer look at Utilitarianism:
5. A tummy tuck will certainly improve sagging
appearances and make some of us feel better.
But the cost of a tummy tuck can be used to drill
a water well and provide clean and pure water to
an entire village in most third world countries.
A closer look at Utilitarianism:
6. Utilitarian Ethics and Public Policy:
If we are trying to decide whether a new football
stadium with luxury boxes for the very rich is a
better investment than decent inner-city schools
and health care for the poor, is utilitarian
calculations a better guide for making such
decisions than deontological ethics?
Problems with Utilitarianism:
1.
The end does not justify the means.
An act is not automatically good simply because it
has a good goal.
The road to destruction is paved with good intentions
(Prov. 14:12).
Ex. President Nixon’s goal of national security was
noble, but the criminal activity of Watergate was not
justified.
Problems with Utilitarianism:
2.
Utilitarian acts have no intrinsic value.
Ex. The attempt to save a life is not an intrinsically
valuable act.
No benevolence, no sacrifice, no love has any value
unless it happens to have good results.
Ex. If forced to choose to save either a medical
doctor or a poor child from a destructive house fire,
one is obligated to save the medical doctor.
Problems with Utilitarianism:
3.
People are subject to the greater good of
statistics:
Ex. If forced to choose to save either a medical
doctor or a poor child from a destructive
house fire, one is obligated to save the medical
doctor because we know he is able to help
people; we don’t know the future of the child.
Problems with Utilitarianism:
4.
The need for an absolute standard:
Relative norms do no stand alone. They
must be relative to something which is not
relative. So, unless there is a standard,
how can they know what is the greater
good.
Problems with Utilitarianism:
5.
The “end” is an ambiguous term:
If the utilitarian contends that ethics
should be based on what will bring the
best results in the long run, how long is
“long?” A few years? a life-time?
Eternity? Anything beyond the immediate
present is outside of the human range.
Problems with Utilitarianism:
6.
Ambiguous as well in determining whether
the “end” means “for the greatest
number” or for “all individuals.”
Could good could be achieved or the most
people if basic rights were denied to some
people? Is this intuitively right?
Problems with Utilitarianism:
Pleasure vs. Pain:

Pain and Pleasure are not exact
opposites. Is this true?

How do you measure pain and
pleasure?

Can pain be beneficial over and
against pleasure?
Conclusion to Consequentialism:
Consequentialists believe that
consequences are the only things that
matter:
A. We do not necessarily know the
outcome.
B. The consequences of our own action
may be unpredictable.
Conclusion to Consequentialism:
C. he consequences of other people’s actions
which impact on our actions may also be
unpredictable.
D. We do not know what the consequences
will be of our action in the long term.
E. We can’t necessarily control the
consequences.
Concluding thought to Consequentialism:
Dostoyesky’s Challenge to Utilitarian Ethicists:
“Tell me honestly, I challenge you-answer me: imagine that you are
charged with building the edifice of human destiny, the ultimate aim of
which is to bring people happiness, to give them peace and
contentment at last, but that in order to achieve this it is essential and
unavoidable to torture just one speck of creation, that…little child
beating her chest with her little fists, and imagine that this edifice has
to be erected on her unexpiated [suffering for having done nothing
wrong] tears. Would you agree to be the architect under those
conditions? Tell me honestly!”
~ The Karamazov Brothers, trans. Ignat Avsey (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1994).
Let’s now explore
Deontological
Ethics:
Deontological Ethics
We should choose actions based on their inherent,
intrinsic worth; evangelical approaches to ethics are
deontological because it presupposes Scripture as
revelation.
“Deontological” comes from the Greek word
“deon”, meaning that which is binding, in particular
a binding duty. So, you are bound to your duty.
Deontological Framework:

An action is right if and only if (iff) it is in accordance with a
moral rule or principle.

This is a purely formal specification, forging a link between
the concepts of right and action and moral rule, and gives
one no guidance until one knows what a moral rule is.
Deontological Framework:

Therefore, the links between right action,
moral rule, and rationality based upon
moral rule + given by God or required by
natural or laid on us by reason or required
by rationality or would command universal
rational acceptance or would by the object
of choice of all rational being—are all
essential aspects to any deontological
framework.
Deontological Framework:

So, the next thing the theory needs is a premise about that: A moral rule
is one that would have been historically:
A.
Theistic:
1.
Given to us by God;
2.
Is required by Natural Law (theistic connection);
B.
Secular (though can still be connected to God):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Is laid on us by reason.
Is required by rationality;
Would command universal acceptance;
Would be the object of choice of all rational beings.
Deontological Ethics
It holds that acts are right or wrong in and of
themselves because of the kinds of acts they are and
not simply because of their ends or consequences.
- The ends do not justify the means.
- A good end or purpose does not justify a bad
actions.
- You are duty-bound; binding is not dependent
on consequences, no matter if it is painful or
pleasurable.
Deontological Ethics
For example:
1. You are duty-bound to keep your promise to be
faithful to your spouse, even if a more attractive
person comes along.
2. You are duty-bound to always telling the truth, even
if it cost you a job.
Duty is not based on what is pleasant or beneficial, but rather
upon the obligation itself.
Deontological Ethics
For example, a deontologist might argue that a
promise ought to be kept simply because it is right
to keep a promise, regardless whether the doing so
will have good or bad consequences.
In contrast, a utilitarian will argue that we should
keep our promises only when keeping them results
in better consequences than the alternatives.
Overview of Ethical Systems: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804):
. To act morally you must be motivated exclusively
by rational commitment to the universal moral law or the categorical
Imperative: “Act in conformity with that maxim, and that maxim only,
that you can will at the same time be a universal law.”
Right actions flow out of right principles
Do the act that
is motivated
by the sincere
belief that
what you are
doing is the
right thing not
merely for
you, but for
anybody
seeking to act
properly in
any situation.
To act
morally
requires the
rational
power to
recognize
absolute
moral laws
that
transcend
our natural
world.
To act
morally
requires the
power of
the will to
rise above
all natural
feelings and
inclinations.
This raises
us above
our natural
world.
Second form of
categorical
imperative:
“Act in such a
way that you
always treat
humans not
merely as a
means to an end
but also as an
end.”
Basic Terms to Know:
1.
Deontological Ethics: "rule or duty-based morality;
...emphasizes right action over good consequences“
2.
a priori: "not in any way derived from experience or dependent
upon it"; concepts derived a priori are universal rules that
determine, in advance, the conditions for knowledge in a
particular domain
3.
maxim: rule of conduct;
4.
Hypothetical imperative: an action that is good only as a means
to something else;
5.
Categorical imperative: an action that is good in itself and
conforms to reason; categorical imperatives act as universal rules
governing a situation regardless of circumstance
Summary:

Thus, Kantian ethics states an action is right iff it
is in accord with the Categorical Imperative (the
supreme principle of morality). Right actions
flow from right principles.

From using our capacity to reason Kant believes
the Categorical Imperative can be formulated in
at least three ways; they are all equivalent with
the first formulation being the basis. Though
they bring out various aspects of the moral law,
they cannot tell us more than what the first
formula does.
Categorical Imperative:

The CI does not depend on a logically prior condition though it
assumes the predisposition that one wishes to be rational and will
follow what rationally determined duty dictates (in contrast to
hypothetical imperatives which means that the consequent depends
upon the antecedent: If p, then q). Thus, morality is a function of
human reason. Human reason is governed by Logic. Q.E.D., to be
irrational is to be inhuman. To be sure, there are perfect and
imperfect duties. Actions are characterized as perfect because they
follow directly from an application of the universalization of the
Categorical Imperative in contrast to imperfect duties that follow
from CI only after considering other factors (e.g., seeking our own
happiness). An imperfect duty is just as strong in its action guiding
force as a perfect duty. Thus, their point of origin highlights their
differences.
Three Formulations of the
Categorical Imperative:

First formulation: “Act in conformity with the maxim and the maxim
only, that you can will at the same time a universal law.” This means
that what I consider doing, it must be something that I can will or
accept that all do (universal); it is replacing individual preferences
with purely universal terms.

Second formulation: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in that of another, always an end and
never as a means only.” In essence, every person has intrinsic
value and that humanity is a limit or constraint on our action.

Third formulation: “Therefore, every rational being must act as if he
were through his maxim always a legislating member in the
universal kingdom of ends.” In other words, we have to will what is
consistent with the operations of the kingdom as a whole. In sum,
all people should consider themselves as both members and heads
Major Points to Consider:
1.
What gives an act moral worth is our motives because we
can’t necessarily control the consequences of our act or/and
things do not always turn out as we want. He calls this
motive “the good will.” Therefore, we are responsible for
our motives to do good or bad, and thus it is for this that we
are held morally accountable.
2.
What is the right motive is acting out of a will to do the right
thing; only an act motivated by this concern for the moral
law is right.
Consider the following Shopkeeper illustration:
Major Points to Consider:
3.
Kant’s Shopkeeper illustration: A shopkeeper charges her customers a fair
price and charges the same to all. But what is the shopkeeper’s motive?
A. If the shopkeeper’s motive for charging a fair price is that it serves her own
best interest, then this motive is not praiseworthy.
B. If the shopkeeper’s motive for charging a fair price is because she is
sympathetic toward her customers, then this motive is still not praiseworthy.
C. If the shopkeeper’s motive is to do the right thing because it is the right
thing, then her motive is indeed praiseworthy. Only doing that which is
morally right is praiseworthy.
We do not always know when our acts are motivated by self-interest,
inclination or pure respect for morality. Also, we often act from mixed
motives. However, we are certain that the motive is pure when we do what
is right regardless how we feel or/and the consequences.
Major Points to Consider:
4. In order for our action to have moral worth we must not
only act out of a right motivation but we must also do
what is right.
Right Motive
Right Act
The motive and the act must be morally right!
We must not only act of duty (have the right motive) but also
“according to duty” or as “duty requires” (do what is right).
5. How we are to know what the right thing to do is to test our
motives and actions against the categorical imperative. If our
motive and acts meets the criteria of the categorical imperative
we are obligated to do it.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
Right Motive
“Oughts” that tell us what we
ought to do no matter what,
under all conditions, and are
universally binding
(categorical imperative).
1st form of Categorical
Imperative:
“Act only on that maxim
which can will as a
universal law.”
Right Act
This means that what I consider
doing, it must be something that I
can will or accept that all do
(universal).
According the first formula:
According to the first formula: the agent
must be willing to eliminate all individual
reference from the maxim of her action.
The most significant exclusion from the
maxim is oneself. Therefore, in order to
pass the test of the categorical imperative
in the first formulation, one must be
prepared to go on willing even if it contains
no reference to oneself.
6.
Thus, whatever I consider doing, it must be something that I can
will or accept all do.
A law by its very nature has a degree of universality. Act only on
that maxim which you can will as a universal law.
Maxim: is a description of the action that I will put to the test.
7.
How do I know what I can and cannot will as a universal practice?
As a rational being I can only will what is non-contradictory
8. First Two Forms of the Categorical Imperative:
1st form of Categorical
Imperative:
2nd form of Categorical
Imperative:
“Act only on that maxim
which can will as a
universal law.”
“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.”
This means that what I consider
doing, it must be something that
I can will or accept that all do
(universal); it is replacing
individual preferences with
purely universal terms.
This means that every person has
intrinsic value & that humanity
is a limit or constraint on our
action.
1st Categorical Imperative:

1st Categorical Imperative is a decision procedure for
moral reasoning. 4 Steps:
1.
Formulate a maxim that enshrines your reasoning
for acting as you propose.
2.
Recast maxim as universal law of nature governing
all rational agents-all people will act upon.
3.
Consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in
a world governed by this law of nature.
4.
Ask whether you would or could rationally will to act
on this maxim in such a world.
9. Second Form of the Categorical Imperatives:
Explains how we ought to
treat ourselves.
Treat ourselves & other as
ends rather than merely as
means.
The moral conclusions
should be the same whether
we use the 1st or 2nd form of
the categorical imperative.
2nd 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.”
This means that every person
has intrinsic value & that
humanity is a limit or
constraint in our action.
10. Third Formulation of the Categorical
Imperative: Hypothetical Kingdom of Ends
“All maxims as
proceeding from
our own lawmaking ought to
harmonize with a
possible kingdom of
ends as a kingdom
of nature."
Grounding for the
Metaphysics of
Morals, 4:436/104.
Key Points:
1. Think of ourselves as members of a society of beings
whose permissible ends are to be respected.
2. Test our maxims by asking, whether, supposing the
maxims were natural laws, there would be a society
of that kind. In other words, we are obligated to act
only by maxims which would harmonize a possible
kingdom of ends.
3. We have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that
create incoherent or impossible states of natural
affairs when we attempt to universalize them;
We have an imperfect duty not to act by maxims that
promote unstable or greatly undesirable states of
affairs.
“Kant seems to assume that those who apply the categorical
imperative to their maxims will come out with answers that
agree when the maxims tested are alike.” J.B. Schneewind,
“Autonomy, Obligation, & Virtue,” pg. 338.
Third Categorical Imperative introduces a
social dimension to Kantian Morality
The formulation of the CI states that we must “act in accordance with the
maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible
kingdom of ends” (4:439).
It combines the others in that (i) it requires that we conform our actions
to the maxims of a legislator of laws (ii) that this lawgiver lays down
universal laws, binding all rational wills including our own, and (iii) that
those laws are of ‘a merely possible kingdom’ each of whose members
equally possesses this status as legislator of universal laws, and hence
must be treated always as an end in itself.
The intuitive idea behind this formulation is that our fundamental moral
obligation is to act only on principles which could earn acceptance by a
community of fully rational agents each of whom have an equal share in
legislating these principles for their community.
Summary of first three categorical
imperatives:

The Categorical Imperative requires that I act
only on maxims that I can will as universal law.

The categorical imperative is supposed to give us a
test for maxims.

Maxim is the is “subjective principle of an action.”
The principle of an action is that prescription from
which the action follows.

If the maxim meets the test, the action that follows
from it has moral worth; if the maxim does not meet it,
the action does not have moral worth.
1st Categorical Imperative:

1st Categorical Imperative requires
willingness to continue to the subscription
to the maxim of an action even if all
individual or singular reference is excluded
from it. Eliminating individual or singular
reference requires eliminating reference to
me. In other words, think of replacing
individual references with purely universal
terms.
1st Categorical Imperative:
“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at
the same time as an end.”
Rather than thinking that humanity is the goal or proper end of our
action, he presupposes that humanity is a limit or constraint on our action.
This kind of constraint can be seen mostly clearly by tracing the connection
with the first formula, the Formula of Universal Law. Remember, the agent must be
willing to eliminate all individual reference from the maxim of her action. The most
significant exclusion here is that of herself. Therefore, be prepared go on willing the
maxim even if it contains no reference to herself.
The constraint that the second formula imposes is that the maxim of an action
must be such that any other free and rational person can adopt it. Treating humanity
as an end in itself is, for Kant, respecting our capacity for free and rational choice; in
his term, it is respecting our autonomy. I am constrained, according to this first
formula, by the consideration that is wrong, other things being equal, to impede the
agency of others. To treat another human being as merely a means is to ignore the
other as a center of agency. The clearest cases here are those of coercion and
1st Categorical Imperative:
The constraint that the second formula imposes is that the maxim of
an action must be such that any other free and rational person can
adopt it. Treating humanity as an end in itself is, for Kant, respecting
our capacity for free and rational choice; in his term, it is respecting
our autonomy. I am constrained, according to this first formula, by
the consideration that is wrong, other things being equal, to impede
the agency of others. To treat another human being as merely a means
is to ignore the other as a center of agency. The clearest cases here are
those of coercion and deception.
For example: If I take the hand of one of my students in my
class and with it I strike the neighbouring student’s face, I have
bypassed the first student’s agency. I have treated her merely as
a means, as though she were merely an organic hitting
implement. The same is true when I deceive somebody, because
if I conceal the nature of the situation, I impede her ability to
make a free and rational choice for that situation.
What is the connection between the
categorical imperative is the following:

If I cannot will maxim X as universal law, then I am acting
for reasons that it is not possible for everyone to share.
But to act toward people on the basis of reasons they
cannot possibly share is to use them, to treat them as a
mere means to my goals. In fact, all people should
consider themselves both members and heads because we
have a perfect duty not to act in maxims that create
incoherent or impossible states of natural affairs for it will
lead to unstable or greatly undesirable states of affairs.
See, the truly autonomous will is not subject to any
particular interest. Kant’s idea here is that one should not
treat others in ways they couldn’t rationally assent to.
10. Perfect and Imperfect Duties:
Perfect Duties:
Perfect duties are
absolutes &
necessary; they
conform to the
categorical imperative.
eg., We can and should
absolutely refrain from
making false or lying
promises.
Imperfect Duties:
Are those duties that don’t whole
heartily conform to the
categorical imperative.
e.g., If I were an egoist and concerned
only about myself, no one could accuse
me of using other people; I would
simply leave them alone. But this
attitude & practice is inconsistent with
the duty to treat others as persons. As
persons, they also have interests and
plans, and to recognize this I must at
least sometimes and in some ways seek
to promote their ends and goals.
The following are 4 examples
famously used by Kant.
1st example: Suicide
“Whenever continuing to live will bring
more pain than pleasure, I shall
commit suicide out of self-love.”
1. Suicide can’t be a universal law for one can’t will that
would be universal will.
2. Remember, suicide would be morally right if and only
if the person who is thinking about suicide can
consistently will that suicide be a universal law.
1st Example: Suicide:

A man reduced to despair by a series of misfortunes feels wearied of
life, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can ask
himself whether it would not be contrary to his duty to himself to take
his own life. Now he inquires whether the maxim of his action could
become a universal law of nature. His maxim is: 'From self-love I
adopt it as a principle to shorten my life when its longer duration is
likely to bring more evil than satisfaction.' It is asked then simply
whether this principle founded on self-love can become a universal
law of nature. Now we see at once that a system of nature of which
it should be a law to destroy life by means of the very feeling whose
special nature it is to impel to the improvement of life would
contradict itself and, therefore, could not exist as a system of nature;
hence that maxim cannot possibly exist as a universal law of nature
and, consequently, would be wholly inconsistent with the supreme
principle of all duty." (Quoted from the Fundamental Principles of the
Metaphysic of Morals, as translated by T.K. Abbott)
2nd example: Lying & Not Keeping Promise:
“Whenever I need money, then I shall borrow
the money and promise to repay, even
though I know I will not repay.”
1.
Lying and not keeping promise can’t be a universal law for one
can’t will that would be universal will.
2.
Remember, lying and not repaying would be morally right if and
only if the person who is thinking about lying and not keeping
promise can consistently will that lying and not keeping promise
be a universal law.
3rd Example: Developing One’s Habits

"A third finds in himself a talent which with the help of some culture
might make him a useful man in many respects. But he finds himself in
comfortable circumstances and prefers to indulge in pleasure rather
than to take pains in enlarging and improving his happy natural
capacities. He asks, however, whether his maxim of neglect of his
natural gifts, besides agreeing with his inclination to indulgence, agrees
also with what is called duty. He sees then that a system of nature could
indeed subsist with such a universal law although men (like the South
Sea islanders) should let their talents rest and resolve to devote their
lives merely to idleness, amusement, and propagation of their speciesin a word, to enjoyment; but he cannot possibly will that this should be
a universal law of nature, or be implanted in us as such by a natural
instinct. For, as a rational being, he necessarily wills that his faculties
be developed, since they serve him and have been given him, for all
sorts of possible purposes." (Quoted from the Fundamental Principles
of the Metaphysic of Morals, as translated by T.K. Abbott)
3rd example: Developing One’s
Habits
“When I’m comfortable as I am, I shall let all my
talents rust.”
1.
Everyone necessarily wills that some of his or her talents be developed.
2.
If everyone necessarily wills that some of his or her talents be developed,
then no one can consistently will that his non-use of talents to be a
universal law.
3.
Non-use of talents is morally right if and only if the agent thinking about
non-use of talents can consistently will that non-use of talents be a
universal law. (The Categorical Imperative)
4.
Therefore, allowing one’s talents to rust is morally wrong.
4th Example: Helping Others.

A fourth, who is in prosperity, while he sees that others have to contend
with great wretchedness and that he could help them, thinks: 'What concern
is it of mine? Let everyone be as happy as Heaven pleases, or as be can
make himself; I will take nothing from him nor even envy him, only I do
not wish to contribute anything to his welfare or to his assistance in
distress!' Now no doubt if such a mode of thinking were a universal law,
the human race might very well subsist and doubtless even better than in a
state in which everyone talks of sympathy and good-will, or even takes care
occasionally to put it into practice, but, on the other side, also cheats when
he can, betrays the rights of men, or otherwise violates them. But although
it is possible that a universal law of nature might exist in accordance with
that maxim, it is impossible to will that such a principle should have the
universal validity of a law of nature. For a will which resolved this would
contradict itself, inasmuch as many cases might occur in which one would
have need of the love and sympathy of others, and in which, by such a law
of nature, sprung from his own will, he would deprive himself of all hope
of the aid he desires." (From the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic
of Morals, as translated by T.K. Abbott)
4th example: Helping Others:
“When I am flourishing and others are in distress, I shall
give nothing to charity.”

Everyone necessarily wills that he or she be helped in desperate
circumstances.
2.
If everyone necessarily wills this, then no one can consistently will that
non-help be a universal law.
3.
Not helping others is morally right if and only if the agent thinking
about not helping others can consistently will that not helping others be
a universal law. (The Categorical Imperative)
4.
Therefore, not helping others is not morally right.
11. Advantages of Kant’s Moral Theory:
Fairness, Consistency, and morally equal treatment of all
people for they are intrinsically valuable.
Emphasizes the Law of Non-contradiction; we would not
will anything that is not rational.
Emphasizes doing what is morally right (it is our duty).
It is universally binding and Impartial-in order for an action to
be morally permissible, we should be able to will it for all.
12. Criticisms against Deontological Ethics:
Duty centered ethics stressing obedience to rules,
as opposed to result-centered or utilitarian ethics.
1. No clear way to resolve moral duties when they come into conflict with each
other.
2. Deontological ethics are consequential moral systems in disguise enshrined
in customs and law have been known to give the best consequences.
3. Do not readily allow for gray areas because they are based on absolutes.
4. Which duties qualify given time or location: Are old duties still valid?
5. Human welfare and misery: Some principles may result in a clash with what
is best for human welfare & prescribe actions which cause human misery.
6. Rule worship: The refusal to break a generously beneficial rule in those
areas in which it is not most beneficial is rule worship.
7. Exclusive focus on “rationality” ignores our relations to & with other human
beings.
There is no clear way to deal with moral conflicts
consider the following:
a.
Killer comes to the door: If a killer comes to the door and ask
for a friend of yours inside whom he intends to kill, you must
tell the truth (illustration by Kant).
But there is only one exceptionless rule in Kant’s philosophy and that is given
in the categorical imperative: We are never permitted to do what we cannot
will as a universal law or what violates the requirement to treat persons as
persons.
Kant may not give us adequate help in deciding what to do when moral
conflicts are involved because in the above example, both to tell the truth and
preserve life are moral obligations.
Regarding Impartiality & Rationality:
b.
Kant’s moral philosophy is its belief in impartiality; in order for
an action to be rally permissible, we should be able to will it for
all.
However, persons do differ in significant ways (gender, race, age, and
talents). In what way does morality require that everyone be treated equally
and in what does it perhaps require that different person be treated
differently (e.g., gender).
c.
Kant’s stress on rationality may be considered to be too maleoriented, too Westernized. It is subject to the continental
critique of structure (Foucault).
Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice

Kant defines virtue as “the moral strength of a human being's will in
fulfilling his duty” (6:405) and vice as principled immorality. (6:390)
This definition appears to put Kant's views on virtue at odds with
classical views such as Aristotle's in several important respects.

First, Kant's account of virtue presupposes an account of moral duty
already in place. Thus, rather than treating admirable character traits
as more basic than the notions of right and wrong conduct, Kant
takes virtues to be explicable only in terms of a prior account of
moral or dutiful behavior. He does not try to make out what shape a
good character has and then draw conclusions about how we ought
to act on that basis. He sets out the principles of moral conduct
based on his philosophical account of rational agency, and then on
that basis defines virtue as the trait of acting according to these
principles.
Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice

Second, virtue is for Kant a strength of will, and hence
does not arise as the result of instilling a ‘second nature’
by a process of habituating or training ourselves to act
and feel in particular ways. It is indeed a disposition, but
a disposition of one's will, not a disposition of emotions,
feelings, desires or any other feature of human nature
that might be amenable to habituation. Moreover, the
disposition is to overcome obstacles to moral behavior
that Kant thought were ineradicable features of human
nature. Thus, virtue appears to be much more like what
Aristotle would have thought of as a lesser trait, viz.,
continence or self-control.
Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice

Third, in viewing virtue as a trait grounded in moral
principles, and vice as principled transgression of moral
law, Kant thought of himself as thoroughly rejecting what
he took to be the Aristotelian view that virtue is a mean
between two vices. The Aristotelian view, he claimed,
assumes that virtue differs from vice only in terms of
degree rather than in terms of the different principles
each involves. (6:404, 432) But prodigality and avarice,
for instance, do not differ by being too loose or not loose
enough with one's means. They differ in that the prodigal
acts on the principle of acquiring means with the sole
intention of enjoyment, while the avaricious act on the
principle of acquiring means with the sole intention of
possessing them.
Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice

Fourth, in classical views the distinction between
moral and non-moral virtues is not particularly
significant. A virtue is some sort of excellence of
the soul , but one finds classical theorists
treating wit and friendliness along side courage
and justice. Since Kant holds moral virtue to be
a trait grounded in moral principle, the boundary
between non-moral and moral virtues could not
be more sharp. Even so, Kant shows a
remarkable interest in non-moral virtues; indeed,
much of Anthropology is given over to
discussing the nature and sources of a variety of
character traits, both moral and non-moral.
Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice

Fifth, virtue cannot be a trait of divine beings, if there are such, since
it is the power to overcome obstacles that would not be present in
them. This is not to say that to be virtuous is to be the victor in a
constant and permanent war with ineradicable evil impulses.
Morality is ‘duty’ for human beings because it is possible (and we
recognize that it is possible) for our desires and interests to run
counter to its demands. Should all of our desires and interests be
trained ever so carefully to comport with what morality actually
requires of us, this would not change in the least the fact that
morality is still duty for us. For should this come to pass, it would not
change the fact that each and every desire and interest could have
run contrary to the moral law. And it is the fact that they can conflict
with moral law, not the fact that they actually do conflict with it, that
makes duty a constraint, and hence virtue essentially a trait
concerned with constraint.
Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice

Sixth, virtue, while important, does not hold pride of place in Kant's
system in other respects. For instance, he holds that the lack of
virtue is compatible with possessing a good will. (6: 408) That one
acts from duty, even repeatedly and reliably can thus be quite
compatible with an absence of the moral strength to overcome
contrary interests and desires. Indeed, it may often be no challenge
at all to do one's duty from duty alone. Someone with a good will,
who is genuinely committed to duty for its own sake, might simply
fail to encounter any significant temptation that would reveal the lack
of strength to follow through with that commitment. That said, he
also appeared to hold that if an act is to be of genuine moral worth, it
must be motivated by the kind of purity of motivation achievable only
through a permanent, quasi-religious conversion or “revolution” in
the orientation of the will of the sort described in Religion.
Kant’s View of Virtue/Vice

Kant here describes the natural human condition as one
in which no decisive priority is given to the demands of
morality over happiness. Until one achieves a permanent
change in the will's orientation in this respect, a
revolution in which moral righteousness is the
nonnegotiable condition of any of one's pursuits, all of
one's actions that are in accordance with duty are
nevertheless morally worthless, no matter what else may
be said of them. However, even this revolution in the will
must be followed up with a gradual, lifelong
strengthening of one's will to put this revolution into
practice. This suggests that Kant's considered view is
that a good will is a will in which this revolution of
priorities has been achieved, while a virtuous will is one
with the strength to overcome obstacles to its
manifestation in practice.
Criticisms against Deontological Ethics:
1.
How do decide between two principles?
2
What about moral conflict between two
morally right principles.
3.
From where or whom do we get our
principles? Nature? God?
4.
If we get our principles from God, who is he
and why doesn’t he make himself more
obvious?
Criticisms against Deontological Ethics:
5.
If from nature, that assume what is in nature is
good.
6.
How do we define nature?
7.
We should follow our conscience? However,
different people’s conscience tell them to do
different things. Ex. If the Bible condemns
divorce, why do people say God told him or her to
divorce his or her spouse? Isn’t this a conflict?
Concluding Questions:

Do you thinks ethics is a matter of natural processes,
or is it transcendent (supernaturally revealed by
God)?

Are ethical principles made or discovered?

Is ethics objective or non-objective?

Are there actual objective facts in ethics, or is it all
just a matter of opinion?
Concluding Questions:

Can I be completely wrong about one of my ethical beliefs?

Is ethics a matter or protecting the individual or enhancing the
welfare of all? In other words, is ethics basically
individualistic or in some way communitarian?

If people from a different culture have different ethical rules or
obligations from our own, must at least one set of rules be
wrong?

Is this known more through reason or by experience of some
sort?

Even those who deny that objective ethical truths are split on
this question?