Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Kant establishes a very stark contrast between the moral motivation of duty action coming solely from with satisfying our various desires and inclinations. These include: Self-love perhaps even appearing as duty Desire for pleasure or avoidance of pain Fear of God The desire to perfect our nature Feelings and inclinations
a pure will, with no other motivation and all the non-moral or immoral motivations which have to do
He grants that it is very difficult and in fact may be impossible to find cases in our own experience duty. But, this does not mean that his moral theory is wrong just that we need to look to something other than experience as our guide here reason. What we need to do, in Kants view is very strictly and rigorously disentangle practical reason from any principles derived from experience.
where someone, either in general or in a particular action, can be said with certainty to act solely from
Kant starts with the concept of law. Everything in nature acts in accordance with laws. But there is a key difference between rational and non-rational beings when it comes to how this works. Non-rational beings are determined by laws. They dont have the freedom to do otherwise
Rational beings have the capacity to act according to their conception of laws to impose laws of various sorts upon themselves, thereby to act by principles that is what a free will does
A will that is not entirely or perfectly good pretty much all of our wills can let or make several different things determine its actions: The desires and inclinations that are in our nature and our will these are subjective
Laws which reason recognizes principles of reason these are objective and imperatives
Categorical Hypothetical
Not in order to attain some other end, but End of action is because action is right happiness which we do in fact all desire end of action is No question of whether reasonable or good
Imperatives of Morality
(commands of morality)
Imperatives of Prudence
(counsels of prudence)
Imperatives of Skill
(rules of skill)
Formulation 1: act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal Formulation 2: act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means. legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends. Formulation 3: every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a
Each of these expresses one key aspect of the notion of the good will, and of duty as ones prime motivation.
These formulations of the Categorical Imperative provide us ways to determine whether a given action would involve a different, ultimately egoistic motivation, in which case it would be morally valueless. Lets look closely at the first two formulations:
would be genuinely in line with duty, and therefore possess moral value or whether to the contrary, it
The first formulation has three critical components: Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.
the general rule of action which your particular action would fall under
you actually have to be able to will this, to deliberately choose that rule of action
The second formulation has four critical components: Humanity = a being that is rational, autonomous, possesses dignity in anyone not just in people
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.
Is it right or wrong to end ones life if it has become a life one does not want to live?
Meritorious Duties to Self Duty: Cultivating ones talents through work, even when one might just enjoy oneself instead
Is it right or wrong to promise to repay a loan when one knows one will not be able to repay it?
Meritorious Duties to Others Duty: Benevolence doing good to other people,
Is it right or wrong to devote oneself to a life of enjoyment rather than cultivating ones talents?
Is it right or wrong not to make efforts to promote the happiness of other people?
How would the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative apply to these? Strict Duties to Self Strict Duties to Others
Duty: Preserving ones life even when one does not want to live
Maxim: from self-love, I shorten my life when it seems likely to involve more bad things than good
This cannot be universalized, because it involves a contradiction using the stimulation to the very life one possesses to shorten that life
Maxim: from self-love, when I need money, I will promise falsely to repay a loan
This cannot be universalized, because the very notions of promising, truth and falsity would become mixed up
Duty: Cultivating ones talents through work, even when one might just enjoy oneself instead
Maxim: I will devote myself to enjoyment, and not develop the faculties and talents I possess
This could be universalized, but cannot actually be willed a rational being wills that his faculties be developed as fully as possible
Maxim: While harming nobody, I will not do anything to help other people
This could be universalized, but cannot actually be willed a rational being realizes that he or she may have need of others sympathy or love
Duty: Preserving ones life even when one does not want to live
Maxim: from self-love, I shorten my life when it seems likely to involve more bad things than good Would I be treating humanity as simply a means?
I would be treating humanity in myself my own life-- as merely a means to enjoying a life that is more good than bad.
Maxim: from self-love, when I need money, I will promise falsely to repay a loan Would I be treating humanity as simply a means?
I would be treating humanity in the other person or people to who I lie as merely a means to gaining money
This conflicts with treating humanity as an end Duty: Cultivating ones talents through work, even when one might just enjoy oneself instead Meritorious Duties to Self
This conflicts with treating humanity as an end Duty: Benevolence doing good to other people, Meritorious Duties to Others
Maxim: I will devote myself to enjoyment, and not develop the faculties and talents I possess Would I be treating humanity as simply a means? this would not conflict with treating
humanity in myself as an end
Maxim: While harming nobody, I will not do anything to help other people Would I be treating humanity as simply a means? this would not conflict with treating
humanity in others as an end it would harmonize negatively with it
neglecting development of ones capacities does not promote the end of humanity