NOTES TO KANT & RAWLS

KANTIAN ETHICS.....................................................................................................................................1 KANTIAN CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE.........................................................................................2 OUTLINE FOR KANTIAN ARGUMENTS...........................................................................................6 JOHN RAWLS.............................................................................................................................................7 OUTLINE FOR RAWLS ARGUMENT...............................................................................................10

KANTIAN ETHICS

Immanuel Kant (German philosopher, (1724-1804)

In the first week of notes I stated that philosoph is !uestionin"# $ preo%%upation with !uestionin" usuall means ou think ou %an fi"ure out some answers# &r in" to reason out our 'i""est !uestions su""ests stron" 'elief in the power of reason, so reason is important to philosoph # Ima"ine a person who is all 'rain, alwa s thinkin", alwa s rational, %alm, unemotional, trul reasona'le- the rational 'ein", a Kantian# (eason or (ationalit , this was his "reatest passion in life

BACKGROUND FOR KANTIAN ETHICS

)a*id +,-. (/ritish philosopher 1711-1770) +ume was a skepti%, he !uestioned e*er thin"# +e maintained we ha*e no "ood reason to 'elie*e the sun will %ome up tomorrow# In ethi%s +ume maintained that there is a'solutel no fa%t we %ould learn a'out the world or a'out oursel*es that %ould tell us what we ou"ht to do or what we should *alue# 1othin" a'out the wa the world is %an tell what we ou"ht do# &his is known as the pro'lem of is-ou"ht deri*ation2 one %annot deri*e an ought from an is# Kantian ethi%s is an attempt to pro*e +ume wron"# Kant pro*ides an isought derivation K$1&I$1 I3-4,G+& ).(I5$&I41 +is task is to find some truth or fa%t that %ould tell us what we ou"ht to do

/ut Kant a"rees, there is no fa%t out there in the world that %ould tell us what we ou"ht *alue or what is "ood and ri"ht# 3o ma 'e the truth a'out ethi%s are not out there in the world# -a 'e the truth is in us, or a'out us# 6or Kant, what is the 'i" truth a'out us that %ounts7 (eason or (ationalit is the 'i" truth a'out us that %ounts# +ow to "et to ou"ht7 +e thinks a'out it !uite a 'it, this is his life, and there is another truth to %onsider# 8hat does the word ou"ht reall mean7# 4u"ht means a rule ou must follow# KANTIAN CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE 9ate"ori%al means no e:%eptions Imperati*e means %ommand, a'solute must 9ate"ori%al Imperati*e2 is an a'solute must with no e:%eptions 3in%e Kant is so into reason, the %ate"ori%al imperati*e is a rule of lo"i% ; non-%ontradi%tion# 3o he states2 The greatest moral good can be nothing else than the conception o la! in itsel " +ere we should think of law as rule, somethin" 'indin"# +e does not mean law in the sense of le"al %ourts# 1oti%e what he has done here# +e takes the %on%ept of ou"ht and supplies a definition of the word ou"ht as a rule that has to 'e followed, a'solutel no e:%eptions and he sa s, well, that is what we ou"ht to follow2 rules that no rational person %ould disa"ree with# &he *er idea of the definition of a rule or law is the ou"ht he deri*es# &he truth he deri*es it from7 &he definition of a word %an 'e thou"ht of as a !uasi-fa%t, a truth that does not %ome from e:perien%e 'ut instead %omes from lo"i%al meanin", 'ut is a truth, an is nonetheless# %le*er# 9$&.G4(I9$< I-=.($&I5., 5.(3I41 1 Act so that the a!i "or #hat $o% &o $o% co%l& #ill as a %ni'ersal r%le( 8hat he is sa in" in this 5ersion 1 is that what ou use as a "uide for our moralit has to 'e somethin" that is not >ust spe%ial to ou 'ut somethin" that ou would e:pe%t e*er one to follow too and that the would a"ree to

follow# &he most in%ontro*erti'le rules are those of lo"i%, and of the rules of lo"i%, non-%ontradi%tion is the first and foremost rule# In this 5.(3I41 1, the words he uses are mu%h more important than the mi"ht seem when ou first read it# +ere is a 'reakdown of the important elements2 )A*I)- a%t so that the ma:im for what ou do $ ma:im is a rule, a "uide# +e is sa in" that ea%h moral a%tion should 'e "uided ' a "enerali?a'le rule# UNI+ERSAL RULE- a%t so that the ma:im for what ou do ou %ould will as a uni*ersal rule# @ou do not "et to ha*e one set of morals or ethi%s for ourself and e:pe%t others to follow a different set of rules# @ou do not "et to follow one set of rules toda and another set another time# &he moral rule has to 'e stron"er than somethin" that %han"es for different people or different times# &he stron"est rules we ha*e are the rules of lo"i% or reason# $ll other rules use the rules of lo"i%# 9entral to this notion of a uni*ersal rule is the 'asi% test of whether or not the rule mi"ht in*ol*e a %ontradi%tion# In other words, would the rule alwa s 'e lo"i%al, alwa s make sense7 3o, we ask, %ould we make this a rule alwa s and fore*er7 8ould appl in" it alwa s and fore*er "i*e us nonsense or not7 .A$-=<. If murder is oka in one %ase, %ould ou make it a uni*ersal rule7 &hat means e*er one would murder e*er one, alwa s# /ut that is not possi'le# &here would not 'e an one around to keep it up# 3o murder as a uni*ersal rule is a lo"i%al impossi'ilit # &hat means murder is unethi%al# If ou appl the rule to all pla%es and all times, would it 'e %ontradi%tor in its *er essen%e7 If it is %ontradi%tor , it is lo"i%all impossi'le# It *iolates the rule of all rules2 it *iolates simple lo"i%, and so it is unethi%al# .A$-=<. If e*er one lied all the time, then we would all know the alwa s mean the opposite of what the sa , so no'od %ould lie, 'e%ause e*er time someone lied (and e*er one would lie all the time# (.*er one would lie uni*ersall ) then we would understand that the >ust mean the opposite of what the sa # 3o reall , ou %ould not make l in" a uni*ersal rule, lo"i%all , it is impossi'le#

WILL a%t so that the ma:im for what ou do ou %ould will# @ou ha*e to 'e a'le to want this ma:im to appl # It has to 'e a ma:im that rational or %i*ili?ed human 'ein"s %ould a"ree to# .A$-=<. 3adism ; -aso%hism in the 'edroom# If e*er one was into kink dominatri: se:, this would not in*ol*e a %ontradi%tion per se, 'ut ou %ould not "et most rational persons to a"ree to it# 8hen appl in" Kant ou must alwa s first look for whether uni*ersali?in" the a%tion would lead to a %ontradi%tion# @ou are entertainin" the possi'ilit of appl in" our a%tion as a uni*ersal rule that all humanit would alwa s follow# 8ould this lead to a %ontradi%tion7 If so, ou ha*e redu%ed this uni*ersali?ed a%tion to an a'surdit # Be 'er$ care"%l( 3a in" that we would not 'e happ or that the uni*ersali?ed possi'le a%tion would lead to pro'lems does not %onstitute a %ontradi%tion# @ou ha*e to e:plain and show that I" e'er$one &i& action ! then no,o&$ co%l& &o action !# &his is %alled redu%in" to a'surdit # @ou %annot sa 'oth that e*er one would do it and no'od %ould do it# 6or Kant it is this redu%tion to a'surdit that makes an a%tion unethi%al# If ou %annot lo"i%all uni*ersali?e the a%tion, then it is unethi%al# &his means that if ou want to "i*e a reall solid Kantian ar"ument to pro*e somethin" is unethi%al, then ou must show that if e*er one did it then no'od %ould# K$1&I$1 9$&.G4(I9$< I-=.($&I5. --5.(3I41 2 5.(3I41 2 treat all persons as ends and ne*er merel as means Goin" from (ule 1 to (ule 22 'e%ause Kant sa s there is onl 1 (ule 5.(3I41 1 Act so that the a!i "or #hat $o% &o $o% co%l& #ill as a %ni'ersal r%le# @our willin" what is rational is an end in itself @ou %annot uphold our willin" what is rational as an end in itself while den in" the rule of willin" what is rational as an end in itself# (eason di%tates that ou %annot will as a uni*ersal rule an a%tion that denies ha*in" a will to make rational %hoi%es =ersons are 'ein"s with will to make rational %hoi%es =ersons are ends in themsel*es therefore

5.(3I41 2 Treat all -ersons as en&s an& ne'er erel$ as eans /asi%all , this sa s, do not onl use people to "et what ou want# &his *ersion is the 'asis for Kantian dis%ussion of ri"hts# /ut it is important to re%o"ni?e that persons are ends in themsel*es 'e%ause the are rational 'ein"s# $%%ordin" to Kant 'ein" rational and ha*in" rational will (a'le to make rational %hoi%es) is the reason wh we ha*e moral ri"hts# Greatest moral good can be nothing else than the conception o la! in itsel !hich is certainl# onl# possible in a rational being 3o, do animals "et moral ri"hts7 6or Kant, no the do not# &he should 'e treated well in "eneral 'e%ause mistreatin" them makes ou less rational# +e e:plains it somethin" like this# If ou torture our pet hamster 'e%ause ou like to wat%h him s!uirm ou are >ust not a%tin" like a *er rational person# 5iolen%e and meanness >ust 'e%ome ha'its that make ou less lo"i%al and rational# 8e ou"ht to 'e "ood to irrational 'ein"s 'e%ause treatin" them meanl refle%ts on our rational 'eha*ior# /ut these irrational 'ein"s ha*e no ethi%al ri"hts# /e %areful, in 'usiness all people are 'ein" used as means to make mone # &he point is, ou ha*e to pro*e the are onl$ 'ein" used to make mone # OTHER I).ORTANT KANTIAN /UOTES0 Nothing can be called good !itho$t %$ali ication e&cept a good !ill Good !ill means doing things o$t o sense o d$t# to do the right thing" 1oti%e how for Kant what we do morall depends on #h$ we do it, what is in our minds# 8e ha*e to ha*e the ri"ht attitude# 8e ha*e to 'e doin" it, not 'e%ause we feel sorr for those who suffer, et%, 'ut 'e%ause we ha*e a moral dut to a%t like rational 'ein"s# /efore ou appl Kant to a %ase, it is important to reali?e that Kantian ethi%s applies tests to determine if an a%tion is %nethical# &hese tests do not determine when an a%tion is ethi%al# 3ometimes, a %ase will >ust not appl to Kantian ethi%s#

O'TLINE (OR KANTIAN ARG'MENT)

Kantian .thi%s is approa%hed in terms of B tests, 'ut ou should follow the steps 'elow, e:a%tl in order, these steps or for &est 1 and then test 2# /eware of 3tep C (&.3& B), ask me first#

1# Gi*e a "eneral statement, a senten%e, statin" if the %ate"ori%al imperati*e is *iolated

or not# 2# ).6I1I&I41 D9$&.G4(I9$< I-=.($&I5. (the &e"inition for Kantian ethi%s)0 Act so that the a!i "or #hat $o% &o $o% co%l& #ill as a %ni'ersal r%le( B# $ppl the a%tion as a uni*ersal rule that humanit would alwa s follow# 4# )es%ri'e the world where this would 'e the %ase# E# Is thereFwould there 'e a %ontradi%tion (like the e:amples of murder ; l in")7 0# .:plain in "reat detail, how or wh G if e*er one did the a%tion, then a'solutel no'od %ould do the a%tion# I" there is a contra&iction1 sto- here# @ou ha*e pro*en the a%tion is unethi%al a%%ordin" to Kant# 7# 1o %ontradi%tion7 e:plain wh no %ontradi%tion arises, then "o to step 8 8# 3how how or wh most reasona'le people would or would not a"ree that this a%tion is the %orre%t ethi%al a%tion# 9ould all reasona'le people a"ree to it7 /ut test 2 does not "i*e a *er stron" ar"ument, it relies on %onsensus rather than solid uni*ersal ethi%s#

DO NOT DO STE. 23 ASK )E BEFORE DOING STE. 2 C# 3how that rational 'ein"s are onl 'ein" used as a means to a "oal#
It is *er rare that ou %an make a "ood ar"ument for step C# In 'usiness we use people to "et mone # &his is oka for Kant, e*er one uses others# &he point is are the onl usin" people7 /ut to %laim this ou %annot >ust sa it, ou ha*e to 'e a'le to -ro'e it# @ou %annot assume it is oka to make an a%%usation like this without proof# It is a *er stron" a%%usation, and in almost all %ases, someone %an show how ou are wron"# &o pro*e it ou ha*e to ha*e a smokin" "un, usuall a do%ument made a*aila'le in the %ase that showed the were aware that people were "oin" to die and did not %are and in their de%ision these d in" people were >ust dollar si"ns or num'ers on a pa"e# &o'a%%o %ompanies in the 00s is an e:ample# 9omputer %ompanies rarel onl use people, the usuall think %ustomers are important as people too# If ou ha*e proof otherwise for a %ase, then ask me and I will let ou know if our proof suffi%es#

4OHN RAWLS
RAWLS CONTRACT THEOR5
H$-othetical I -erati'e (e%all the Kantian 9ate"ori%al Imperati*e whi%h is a rule that must 'e followed, no matter what# (awls "i*es us a h potheti%al imperati*e# $ h potheti%al imperati*e sa s that suppose this were the %ase, then we ou"ht to do this#

<ike +o''es ; <o%ke, (awls is tr in" to ima"ine a state of nature where e*er one 'e"ins with true e!ualit , or at least 'e"ins without a sense of pri*ile"e# 9ounterfa%tual is an ima"inar situation used to persuade in fa*or of a theor # +ere is the (awlsian %ounterfa%tual2
($8<3 5.I< 46 IG14($19.

Ima"ine a "roup of people assem'led in a room to %reate a "o*ernment and laws# Ima"ine also that e*er one in this "roup has se*ere amnesia and %annot see themsel*es or others#&he also %annot feel themsel*es or others#
($8<3 4(IGI1$< =43I&I412 a so%iet that does not start wF pre>udi%e

&hose in the Ori6inal .osition are %olor-'lind, %lass-'lind, 'lind to edu%ational le*el, 'lind to "ender, 'lind to se:ual orientation, 'lind to reli"ious affiliation, 'lind to spe%ial needs, et%# (awls maintains that if we made laws ; "o*ernments, or if we e:amined fairness under this *eil of i"noran%e, we would lo"i%all end up with his s stem, thus (awls 'rid"es suppose to ou"ht# +e %laims that, "i*en the Ori6inal .osition, rational a"ents under a *eil of i"noran%e would a"ree to his =(I19I=<.3 1 and 2 stated here2

=(I19I=<. 1#
Each person has e%$al RIG*T to most e&tensi+e LI,ERTIE) compatible !- liberties or all .NEGATIVE RIG*T)/
0e !o$ld be concerned that !e all get eno$gh basic reedom

=(I19I=<. 2#
Distri,%te ,ene"its an& ,%r&ens so that ,oth0 B( O""ices an& -ositions are o-en to all 7E/UAL O..ORTUNIT58 0e !o$ld be concerned that !e ha+e a chance to ha+ing some control o+er !hat happens1 i !e !ant to ha+e that control" .E%$al Opport$nit# at go+ernment positions"/ 0e !o$ld also be concerned that !e ha+e e%$al shot at appl#ing or 2obs in an open mar3et" .E%$al Opport$nit# as Non4discrimination in the 2ob mar3et/" A( GREATEST BENEFIT -ossi,le arises "or the least a&'anta6e& 0e !o$ld be a raid !e might be the !orst o 1 so !e !o$ld !ant to ma3e those at the +er# bottom as !ell o as !e co$ld

I-=4(&$1&2 =(I19I=<. 1 o*er-rides =(I19I=<. 2-we would 'e most %on%erned that we "et
'asi% li'ert #

/ o*er-rides $# 9han%e to impro*e as hope to rise a'o*e 'ein" at the *er

more important than 'ein" a little 'etter off at the *er 'ottom#

'ottom is

A..L5ING RAWLS TO CASES

($8<3 seriousl means a'solutel usin" this =(I19I=<. 1 o*er =(I19I=<. 2 'e%ause we would 'e most %on%erned that we "et 'asi% li'ert / o*er-rides $# 9han%e to impro*e as hope to rise a'o*e 'ein" at the *er 'ottom is more important than 'ein" a little 'etter off at the *er 'ottom# In other words, if ou are hopeless a'out "ettin" a 'etter >o' 'ut ha*e food stamps and A'o:, ou are prett misera'le# /etter to do without the A'o: and ha*e a %han%e at a >o'# 8hen appl in" (awls ou MUST follow the order he follows 2 ne"ati*e ri"hts e!ual %han%e for >o's least ad*anta"ed 6$I(1.33 for ($8<3 means 1.G$&I5. (IG+&3# 1e"ati*e (i"hts are not *iolated# If ne"ati*e ri"hts are *iolated 'ut e*er one has e!ual opportunit and least ad*anta"ed are not worse, 3&4=, )4 14& ,3. ($8<3# ,se ri"hts theor instead# @ou %annot "o on from here with (awls# If onl ne"ati*e ri"hts are *iolated then it is a 1e"ati*e (i"hts %ase, not a (awls %ase# 3o, our first step is >ust to show first that e*er one "ets to keep their ne"ati*e ri"hts, or loses them .H,$< 4==4(&,1I&@ as in the E%$al Opport$nit# Act Ra#ls is &isc%ssin6 9o,s( S-eci"icall$1 he is &isc%ssin6 hirin6 -ractices( @our se%ond step is >ust to show whether an 'od is losin" %han%e for >o's (.H,$< 4==4(&,1I&@)# Iust show whether-there is >o' dis%rimination in hirin" pra%ti%es in our %ase# /ut ou need to show this# @ou need to e:plain how the %ase relates to hirin" pra%ti%es# .*en if there is no dis%rimination, ou need to e:plain wh there is none# .*en if the %ase has nothin" to do with hirin" for >o's, ou need to e:plain that the %ase has nothin" to do with hirin"# E:%al o--ort%nit$ &oes not ean e:%al chance "or 6oo&s or ser'ices, it onl means %han%e for >o's# +a*in" no e!ual %han%e for >o's means ou do not ha*e the %han%e to rise a'o*e our status# 6or (awls, opportunit for "oods ; ser*i%es is "oin" to 'e une!ual# 1ot e*er one is "oin" to ha*e the e:a%t same amount of ri%hes, et%# 8hen (awls dis%usses e!ual opportunit he means e!ual %han%e to appl for >o's and to 'e %onsidered on our merit and !ualifi%ations# If ou are poor, in this %ountr ou %an still appl for an >o'# @ou should then 'e %onsidered on our merit, not dis%riminated a"ainst for an non->o' related fa%tors# &he fa%t that ou ha*e less edu%ation dis!ualifies ou possi'l , 'ut that is not primaril an issue of e!ual opportunit #

.du%ation is a ser*i%e# ,nder least ad*anta"ed, that is where a%%ess to "oods and ser*i%es applies under (awls# $lso, it is important to re%o"ni?e that preser*in" a whole field or industr is not part of the (awls s%enario of opportunit for >o's# +e is not referrin" to makin" more >o's a*aila'le and he is not referrin" to sa*in" >o's that mi"ht 'e lost# $r"uin" this wa is like ar"uin" that we should all ride in a horse and 'u"" in order to preser*e the >o's of 'la%ksmiths# It is like sa in" we should all smoke %i"arettes to preser*e the to'a%%o industr # +a*in" the %han%e to "et a >o' in a parti%ular field ' preser*in" >o's in that field is not what (awls means ' e!ual opportunit # <.$3& $)5$1&$G.)# 4nl after ou ha*e %o*ered 1e"ati*e (i"hts ; .!ual 4pportunit %an ou e*en 'e"in to talk a'out <east $d*anta"ed# / least ad*anta"ed (awls is not referrin" to the least ad*anta"ed of those in*ol*ed in the %ase ou are dis%ussin"# +e means least ad*anta"ed in so%iet # &he least ad*anta"ed are the poor, homeless, ill (least ad*anta"ed are not %ompanies#) 6or e:ample, if our %ase deals with homeowners seekin" remodelin" ser*i%es then there are no least ad*anta"ed# &he least ad*anta"ed do not own homes# ,nder least ad*anta"ed, that is where a%%ess to "oods and ser*i%es applies under (awls# It is not the %ase that these should 'e e!ual, he tells us, instead, we should tr to make the poorest a'le to 'e 'etter off, make their a%%ess to "oods and ser*i%es as "ood as it %ould possi'l 'e# 6or (awls, it mi"ht not 'e possi'le to a*oid ha*in" ri%hest ; poorest, 'ut at least we must tr to make the poorest as well off as we %an# &his, howe*er, he tells us is somethin" we want to look for onl$ i" it will not make >o's less open and onl if it will not depri*e e*er one of ne"ati*e ri"hts# &his B step pro%ess is a'solutel essential to (awls# @ou must pro*e that a test is not *iolated, and ou must pro*e when tests are *iolated#

O'TLINE (OR RA0L) ARG'MENT

1. ).6I1. ($8<3I$1 &+.4(@2 4%stice as "airness

eans ne6ati'e ri6hts are -reser'e&1 there is e:%al o--ort%nit$ "or 9o,s1 an& the least a&'anta6e& are hel-e& as %ch as -ossi,le #hile -reser'in6 ne6ati'e ri6hts an& e:%al o--ort%nit$( (>ust %op and paste definition) 2# 3tate in one senten%e if the a%tion *iolates (awls or not# 3. 3tate in one lon"er senten%e how the a%tion applies to this %ase2 negative rights are/are not preserved, there is/is not equal opportunity for jobs, and the least advantaged are/are not helped as much as possible.

4. DEFINE NEGATI+E RIGHTS Ne6ati'e ri6hts are a 9%sti"ie& clai

to ,e le"t

alone# Iust %op Fpaste the definition# E# <ist in a senten%e e*er one who has ne"ati*e ri"hts in*ol*ed# 0# In a para"raph for ea%h "roup of people, state their ne"ati*e ri"hts# 7# .:plain for ea%h "roup if their ne"ati*e ri"hts are preser*ed or not, and wh or how# 8. DEFINE E/UAL O..ORTUNIT5 O""ices an& -ositions are o-en to all( Iust %op Fpaste the definition# C# 3tate whether >o's are open to e*er one or not# 10# If the %ase is not rele*ant to >o' opportunit , e:plain wh the %ase is not related to hirin" pra%ti%es# 11# If >o' opportunit is %losed for some, e:plain who is 'ein" shut out ; wh # 12. DEFINE LEAST AD+ANTAGED )e ,ers o" societ$ at the 'er$ ,otto 1 recei'in6 least 6oo&s an& ser'ices( Iust %op Fpaste the definition# 1B# .:plain pre%isel who the least ad*anta"ed are in this %ase# 14# )es%ri'e their li*es of disad*anta"e# 15. .:plain how this %ase %ould or would result in worse or same or 'etter %onditions for the least ad*anta"ed# 10# If least ad*anta"ed would 'e worse off 'e%ause of the a%tion, then des%ri'e what their li*es would 'e like# 17# .nd ' re%appin" where the %ase is most rele*ant to (awls (whi%h test is most rele*ant ; wh )