Summary A* Kantian Ethics Notes from the AQA philosophy A-level syllabus - Full AO1 notes

Immanuel Kant’s account of what is meant by “good will”
-​ We ought to be held responsible for what we can control.
-​ It therefore follows that we cannot be morally responsible for the
consequences of our actions.
-​ Similarly, our emotions are variable, heteronomous and uncontrollable, and
thus they cannot be praised as the basis of our moral motivation.
-​ We can control following our duties through reason
-​ Therefore, Kant subscribes to deontology. An action’s moral worth is not
determined by its consequences but by the intention to follow a duty that lies
behind that action.
-​ “Will” means our intention or deliberate choice.
-​ Kant distinguishes between conditionally good things and those that are
unconditionally good. Conditionally good things, such as happiness,
intelligence or courage, depend on how they are used and can become bad if
misapplied. For example, happiness is only good if it is deserved.
-​ However, the only thing that is inherently and always good (unconditionally
good) is a good will.
-​ A good will is the intention to do the right action for its own sake, purely
because it is one’s duty, and not because of any ulterior motive such as
personal gain or inclination.
-​ It is the only thing that is morally good without qualification.
-​ One must therefore act out of duty, not merely in accordance with duty (ie
one does not just do what duty demands, but one also does it only because
duty demands it).
-​ Kant gives the example of a shopkeeper who reduces prices because they
believe it is the fair thing to do for their customers - this reflects a good will.
In contrast, another shopkeeper might lower prices for selfish reasons, such
as increasing business and profit. Although both act in accordance with duty,
the difference in their motives means only the first possesses a good will.



The distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty

, -​ Acting out of duty means doing the right action because it is one’s duty,
motivated by good will.
-​ A good will is the intention to do the right action for its own sake, purely
because it is one’s duty, and not because of any ulterior motive such as
personal gain or inclination. It is the only thing that is morally good without
qualification.
-​ Therefore, acting out of duty is morally good without qualification.
-​ Whereas, if you act in accordance with your duty, you are doing your duty
but acting with an ulterior motive.
-​ The action itself may be correct, but it is motivated by an ulterior motive,
such as self-interest, desire, or inclination.
-​ In such cases, the action lacks moral worth, even though it appears morally
right.
-​ Kant offers the example of a shopkeeper returning change. Returning the
change simply because it is the right thing would be morally good without
qualification. But if he did so to, say, better his own self-image, this would not
be moral.



The distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives
-​ An imperative is an order or command.
-​ A hypothetical imperative is what you ought to do, on the assumption of
some desire or goal.
-​ A hypothetical imperative could be “if you want X, then you should do Y”.
-​ E.g. “If you desire to be intelligent, you should read”
-​ Hypothetical imperatives depend upon the rational agent desiring an end.
-​ Whereas categorical imperatives are absolute commands we are obliged to
follow in all circumstances.
-​ Whereas categorical imperatives should be performed regardless of the
agent's ends, as they are good in themselves and are the only moral type of
imperative.
-​ Kant points out that reason discovers universal laws, e.g. of maths & physics.
-​ Therefore, through the exercise of reason, we can discover a universal moral
law.

, -​ Categorical imperatives are rational because they are applied consistently for
everyone in every situation.
-​ Anything universal applies to all people in all situations, i.e., it will apply
‘categorically’.
-​ Morality could not apply to all people in all situations if it were hypothetical,
as it would depend upon subjective desires or the consequences of actions.
-​ Morality needs to be universal, objective and binding
-​ This means morality is categorical, not hypothetical.
-​ They are your duty regardless of what you want and are not a means to a
further end.


The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative

-​ For Kant, the maxims on which it would be morally permissible to act will be
rational and therefore universalisable
-​ “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law”
-​ The agent must question whether or not we could rationally conceive that
everyone could act upon this maxim
-​ If universalising the maxim would be somehow self-contradictory, then you
would be committing a contradiction in conception.
-​ Hence, its negation would become a perfect duty (an absolute duty to be
done by everyone all the time). Acting on this maxim is always blameworthy.
-​ For example, in the case of stealing, Kant would argue that your maxim
would be ‘I can steal if it gets me the property I want’.
-​ If, however, you universalised this, then you would have to say, ‘All rational
agents must, by a universal law of nature, steal when it gets them the
property they want’.
-​ Stealing presupposes the concept of ‘property’ (or ‘property rights’), but in
this world, where anyone can take whatever they want, the concept of
‘property’ (or ‘property rights’) doesn’t exist.
-​ So, my maxim cannot exist with itself as a universal law.
-​ Thus, we have a perfect duty not to steal.
-​ If universalising the maxim would be contradictory because it would be
irrational to want (not because of a logical contradiction), then it would be a
contradiction in will.
-​ Its negation would become an imperfect duty.