Recall the distinction between consequentialist and anti-consequentialist theories:
We have discussed many problems with utilitarianism (consequentialist theory):
Examples:
Kantian ethics is anti-consequentialist
Kantian ethics is anti-consequentialist
Kant's central moral principle is known as the "Categorical Imperative."
Let's break that down
Two kinds of imperatives (rules):
Examples:
Morality is about categorical imperatives.
"Thou shalt not kill"
vs
"Thou shalt not kill (if thou wishes not to go to jail)."
Kant's Categorical Imperative
Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
How to apply the Categorical Imperative
Suppose I want to do X. Is X right or wrong?
NO
The action is IMMORAL
4. Can you WILL that the rule be a universal rule?
YES
NO YES
IMMORAL
MORAL
There two ways that an action can violate the Categorical Imperative:
Thus, violating the Categorical Imperative results in a self-contradictory will (irrational).
First kind of case: Lying
First kind of case: Lying
Second kind of case: Not giving to charity
PROBLEMS
Kant's moral rules are really absolute.
PROBLEMS
Rules are "ambiguous"
PROBLEMS
Rules may conflict in the same situation
What if two moral rules conflict?
(ex. Lying vs. protecting an innocent person's life)
Kant offered another principle complementary to the Categorical Imperative
Treat other human beings always as an end, and never as a means only.
Two Conceptions of Justice
Two Conceptions of Justice
Two Conceptions of Justice
The Presidential Debate