TO WHAT EXTENT CAN KANTIAN DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS BE DEFENDED? (25
marks)
(pink = out of spec content)
LOA: Yes, Kantian Ethics is Convincing
CR: The Categorical Imperative, which Protects Individual Rights and Provides Guidance
INTRO: Kantian ethics is a deontological, act-based ethical theory, which claims that the
good will is the only thing that is good without qualification, so we must always act out of the
good will and our duty. This provides clear moral guidance and appeals to our reason, which
we use to discover duties. However, the theory faces issues including ignoring
consequences of actions and the value of certain motives, as well as problems with the
categorical imperative. Despite these challenges, I will argue that Kantian deontological
ethics is a successful theory which can be defended. The crucial reason for this is that
approaching morality through categorical imperatives rather than desires or consequences,
protects individual rights and provides clear moral guidance.
PARA 1 - ACTING OUT OF DUTY VS IGNORING MOTIVES:
P) Outline Kant’s Distinguishment between Out Of and In Accordance with Duty
A) Outline Ignoring Value of Certain Motives Objection
C) Feelings Motivate us, but Don’t Decide
E) Acting out of duty is vital, ensuring you do the right act regardless of feelings.
PARA 2 - IGNORING CONSEQUENCES (IS MORALLY IMPORTANT):
P) Outline Kant’s claim only the Good Will is Good, because of Intentions, not
Consequences
A) Mill: Importance of Consequences + Axe Murderer Example
C) Morality Is Not About Ends or Desires, we’re only Concerned with our Own Duty
E) Morality isn’t based on Desires + Onora O’Neill on Humanity Formula
PARA 3 - FOOT ON HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES:
P) Outline Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Formulations
A) Foot: Outline Foot’s Hypothetical Imperative Objection
C) Undermines Morality, as it Justifies All Acts based on Desires
R) Foot: There’s still Reason to be Moral
E) Considering Desires in Morality is Wrong and Gives Unclear Guidance, Protecting
Individual Rights from Tyranny of the Majority
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Kantian deontology is a successful ethical theory, and the
absolutist nature of Kant’s theory protects individual rights, respects their dignity and
rationality. The crucial reason for its success is the way it approaches morality through
categorical imperatives, not only giving us constant and stable moral rules, but more
importantly protecting individual rights, and not letting our desires influence our moral
decisions. Although cases like the axe murderer suggest that Kant’s theory isn’t always
realistic, this is largely due to the fact that other people don't follow the categorical
imperative, and Kant claims we shouldn't concern ourselves with their actions, only our own
marks)
(pink = out of spec content)
LOA: Yes, Kantian Ethics is Convincing
CR: The Categorical Imperative, which Protects Individual Rights and Provides Guidance
INTRO: Kantian ethics is a deontological, act-based ethical theory, which claims that the
good will is the only thing that is good without qualification, so we must always act out of the
good will and our duty. This provides clear moral guidance and appeals to our reason, which
we use to discover duties. However, the theory faces issues including ignoring
consequences of actions and the value of certain motives, as well as problems with the
categorical imperative. Despite these challenges, I will argue that Kantian deontological
ethics is a successful theory which can be defended. The crucial reason for this is that
approaching morality through categorical imperatives rather than desires or consequences,
protects individual rights and provides clear moral guidance.
PARA 1 - ACTING OUT OF DUTY VS IGNORING MOTIVES:
P) Outline Kant’s Distinguishment between Out Of and In Accordance with Duty
A) Outline Ignoring Value of Certain Motives Objection
C) Feelings Motivate us, but Don’t Decide
E) Acting out of duty is vital, ensuring you do the right act regardless of feelings.
PARA 2 - IGNORING CONSEQUENCES (IS MORALLY IMPORTANT):
P) Outline Kant’s claim only the Good Will is Good, because of Intentions, not
Consequences
A) Mill: Importance of Consequences + Axe Murderer Example
C) Morality Is Not About Ends or Desires, we’re only Concerned with our Own Duty
E) Morality isn’t based on Desires + Onora O’Neill on Humanity Formula
PARA 3 - FOOT ON HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES:
P) Outline Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Formulations
A) Foot: Outline Foot’s Hypothetical Imperative Objection
C) Undermines Morality, as it Justifies All Acts based on Desires
R) Foot: There’s still Reason to be Moral
E) Considering Desires in Morality is Wrong and Gives Unclear Guidance, Protecting
Individual Rights from Tyranny of the Majority
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Kantian deontology is a successful ethical theory, and the
absolutist nature of Kant’s theory protects individual rights, respects their dignity and
rationality. The crucial reason for its success is the way it approaches morality through
categorical imperatives, not only giving us constant and stable moral rules, but more
importantly protecting individual rights, and not letting our desires influence our moral
decisions. Although cases like the axe murderer suggest that Kant’s theory isn’t always
realistic, this is largely due to the fact that other people don't follow the categorical
imperative, and Kant claims we shouldn't concern ourselves with their actions, only our own
