Introducing Deontological/Kantian Ethics

Summary

This script discusses deontological ethics, also known as Kantian ethics, focusing on the philosopher Immanuel Kant's belief in ethical rules derived from reason rather than consequences. It contrasts deontological ethics with consequentialism and virtue ethics, emphasizing the importance of adhering to moral principles regardless of outcomes. The script introduces Kant's categorical imperative, explaining how it guides ethical decision-making through the universal law of nature and the humanity as an end formula, ensuring actions are universally permissible and respect human dignity.

Takeaways

• 📚 The video discusses the second of the 'big three' ethical theories, deontological ethics, also known as Kantian ethics, which is named after the philosopher Immanuel Kant.
• 🤔 Deontological ethics asserts that the morality of an action is determined by whether it adheres to a rule or principle, rather than the consequences of the action.
• 🚫 The theory emphasizes that some acts are inherently wrong, no matter the potential benefits, because they violate moral rules, such as killing the innocent.
• 🤓 Consequences do matter in deontological ethics but are not the sole determinant of right or wrong; they can be considered after establishing permissibility based on rules.
• 📖 Elizabeth Anscombe's quote is highlighted, emphasizing that choosing to kill the innocent as a means to an end is always wrong, regardless of the context or potential outcomes.
• 🧐 The source of moral rules in deontological ethics is explored, with the traditional answers being divine commands or reason, with Kant advocating for the latter.
• 🔄 Disagreements within and between religions about moral rules suggest that divine command theory may not provide a clear or universally accepted set of ethical rules.
• 🤔 Kant's view introduces a distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, with the former being goal-dependent and the latter being universally applicable.
• 🌐 The 'Universal Law of Nature' formula is presented as a way to test whether an action's maxim can be logically universalized without contradiction.
• 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 The 'Humanity as an End' formula is mentioned as another formulation of the categorical imperative, which will be discussed in more detail in a subsequent video.

Q & A

What are the 'big three' ethical theories mentioned in the script?

The 'big three' ethical theories mentioned in the script are consequentialism, deontological ethics (also known as Kantian ethics), and virtue ethics.

Who is Immanuel Kant and why is deontological ethics also called Kantian ethics?

Immanuel Kant is a philosopher credited for organizing the way of thinking known as deontological ethics. It is also called Kantian ethics because Kant is considered the primary figure who developed and systematized this ethical theory.

What is the main distinction between deontological ethics and consequentialism?

Deontological ethics focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions based on rules or principles, regardless of their consequences. Consequentialism, on the other hand, judges the morality of an action based on the goodness or badness of its consequences.

How do consequences factor into deontological ethics?

In deontological ethics, consequences do matter but they do not solely determine what is right or wrong. An action's permissibility is primarily based on adherence to moral rules or principles, and consequences can be considered after the action's permissibility is established.

What is the significance of Elizabeth Anscombe's statement regarding killing the innocent?

Elizabeth Anscombe's statement emphasizes that certain actions, such as killing the innocent, are always wrong regardless of the potential benefits or outcomes. This highlights the deontological view that some moral rules are absolute and should not be violated.

What are the two traditional sources of moral rules according to the script?

The two traditional sources of moral rules mentioned in the script are divine commands from God and reason, as proposed by Immanuel Kant.

What is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives in Kantian ethics?

Hypothetical imperatives provide guidance on how to achieve a goal one already has, while categorical imperatives state what one should do without any conditions, applying universally to all rational beings.

What does the universal law of nature formula state?

The universal law of nature formula states that one should 'act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.' It is a test to determine if an action's maxim can be logically universalized without contradiction.

What is the humanity as an end formula and what does it imply?

The humanity as an end formula states that one should 'act so that you treat humanity whether in your own person or in that of another always as an end and never as a means only.' It implies that individuals should always be treated with respect and never merely as a means to an end.

How does Kant's categorical imperative relate to the concept of universalizability?

Kant's categorical imperative is connected to universalizability through the process of testing whether an action's maxim can be consistently applied universally. If an action's maxim leads to a logical contradiction when universally applied, it is morally impermissible.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Deontological Ethics

This paragraph introduces deontological ethics, also known as Kantian ethics, named after the philosopher Immanuel Kant who is credited with organizing this ethical theory. Deontological ethics is one of the 'big three' ethical theories, alongside consequentialism and virtue ethics. It posits that the morality of an act is determined by whether it adheres to a rule or principle, rather than the consequences of the act. Even if the outcomes are good, acts that violate ethical rules are considered wrong. The paragraph also touches on the difficulty in understanding Kant's work and the importance of considering both rules and consequences in ethical decision-making.

05:01

📖 Understanding Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives

This paragraph delves into the concepts of hypothetical and categorical imperatives as part of deontological ethics. Hypothetical imperatives are conditional commands that depend on a pre-existing goal, guiding actions to achieve that goal. In contrast, categorical imperatives are universal and apply to all rational beings regardless of personal goals. The paragraph explains that while hypothetical imperatives are goal-dependent, categorical imperatives are not and are derived from reason alone. Kant's view on ethics is that moral rules can be discovered through reason, not just divine commands, and the paragraph sets the stage for exploring Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative.

10:02

🔍 The Universal Law of Nature Formula

This paragraph focuses on the 'Universal Law of Nature' formula of the categorical imperative, which is a key component of Kantian ethics. It explains that one should only act according to a maxim (a general principle or rule) if they can logically will that it becomes a universal law. The paragraph outlines a procedure for testing the morality of an action: formulate the action into a maxim and then determine if it can be universally applied without logical contradiction. Examples such as cheating and lying are used to illustrate how this formula works, showing that actions that cannot be universally applied without contradiction are morally impermissible according to the Universal Law of Nature.

Keywords

💡Deontological Ethics

Deontological ethics, also known as Kantian ethics, is a normative ethical theory that emphasizes duty and moral rules. It is named after Immanuel Kant, who is credited with organizing this way of thinking. In the video, deontological ethics is described as a rule-based ethical theory where the morality of an action is determined by whether it adheres to a moral rule or principle, rather than the consequences of the action.

💡Consequentialism

Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges the morality of an action based on the goodness or badness of its consequences. Although the video's main focus is on deontological ethics, consequentialism is mentioned as one of the 'big three' ethical theories, contrasting with deontological ethics by suggesting that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its outcomes.

💡Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is another of the 'big three' ethical theories mentioned in the video. It focuses on the character of the moral agent, emphasizing virtues such as courage, honesty, and wisdom. While not the main focus of the video, virtue ethics is contrasted with deontological ethics to highlight different ethical approaches.

💡Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant is a German philosopher who is central to the discussion in the video. He is known for his work on ethics, particularly deontological ethics, and is credited with organizing the principles that define this ethical theory. The video script mentions Kant as a difficult philosopher to understand, indicating his significant but complex contribution to ethical philosophy.

💡Rule-Based Ethical Theory

A rule-based ethical theory, as discussed in the video, is one where morality is determined by adherence to a set of rules or principles, rather than the consequences of actions. Deontological ethics is presented as an example of a rule-based theory, where certain acts are considered right or wrong based on whether they follow moral rules, regardless of the outcome.

💡Categorical Imperative

The categorical imperative is a key concept in Kantian ethics, introduced in the video as a way to determine moral rules through reason. It is a principle that commands action according to reason, without condition. The video explains that Kant provides different formulations of the categorical imperative, which are used to derive moral laws.

💡Hypothetical Imperatives

Hypothetical imperatives are mentioned in the video as a type of command that depends on a specific goal or condition. They are conditional and suggest a course of action based on a desired outcome. For example, 'if you want to be a doctor, you should go to medical school.' These are contrasted with categorical imperatives, which are unconditional and apply universally.

💡Divine Commands

Divine commands refer to the idea that moral rules come from a divine source, such as God. In the video, this concept is discussed as one traditional answer to the question of where moral rules come from. However, it is also noted that disagreements within and between religions can complicate this theory.

💡Moral Rules

Moral rules are principles that guide ethical behavior. In the context of the video, moral rules are derived from reason in deontological ethics, as opposed to divine commands or other sources. The video discusses how these rules are foundational to determining what actions are right or wrong.

💡Universal Law of Nature

The universal law of nature is one of Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative. It is presented in the video as a test for moral maxims: act only according to the maxim that you can will to become a universal law. This formula is used to determine whether an action is morally permissible by considering if it could be a universal principle without contradiction.

💡Humanity as an End

Humanity as an end is another formulation of the categorical imperative mentioned in the video. It states that one should act in such a way that humanity is treated as an end in itself, never merely as a means. This concept emphasizes the inherent dignity and value of every person, which should not be violated for the sake of some other goal or purpose.

Highlights

Introduction to deontological ethics as one of the 'big three' ethical theories alongside consequentialism and virtue ethics.

Deontological ethics is also known as Kantian ethics, named after the philosopher Immanuel Kant.

Kant is credited for organizing the deontological way of thinking, which is rule-based rather than consequences-based.

Acts are judged right or wrong based on adherence to ethical rules or principles, not just their consequences.

Consequences do matter in deontological ethics but are not the sole determinant of morality.

Elizabeth Anscombe's quote emphasizes that killing the innocent is always wrong, regardless of the ends.

Deontological ethics asserts that some acts are intrinsically wrong, such as torturing a baby, regardless of potential benefits.

The source of moral rules is a central question in deontological ethics, with divine commands and reason as traditional answers.

Kant believed ethical rules could be derived through reason alone, without divine commands.

Disagreements within and between religions pose a challenge to divine command theory as a source of moral rules.

Kant's focus on reason introduces the concept of hypothetical and categorical imperatives in moral decision-making.

Hypothetical imperatives are conditional and depend on personal goals, unlike categorical imperatives.

Categorical imperatives are universal and apply to all rational beings, setting the goals and means of morality.

Kant provides five formulations for the categorical imperative, with two being discussed: the universal law of nature and humanity as an end.

The universal law of nature formula states to act only according to maxims that could be willed as universal laws.

The humanity as an end formula asserts that one should always treat humanity as an end, never as a means.

The procedure for applying the universal law of nature involves formulating a maxim and testing its universality for logical consistency.

Examples are given to illustrate the process of testing maxims for universality, such as cheating on a final paper.

The concept of lying is used to demonstrate the logical inconsistency of universalizing a maxim that undermines trust.

Transcripts

this is the second of what i call the

big three ethical theory so we have

consequentialism deontological ethics

also called kantian ethics and you'll

hear me say kantian as much as

deontological kantian immanuel kant uh

because he's kind of credited for

organizing this way of thinking so

deontological thinking and kantian

ethics uh referred to the same thing and

then there's gonna be virtue ethics

which is the third of the big three and

then we'll talk about social contract to

feminist ethics and that kind of stuff

as well all right so like i said it's

one of the more popular ethical theories

among philosophers and non-philosophers

uh like i said it's just as commonly

referred to as kantian ethics after the

philosopher immanuel kant who's very

hard to understand so my apologies uh

for the reading it's he's just a very

hard person to figure out a lot of

german students will actually read him

in english to get the just the

translation uh to understand him better

the idea is that some acts no matter how

good the consequences are simply wrong

because they violate a rule or principle

of ethics and some acts no matter how

bad the consequences are simply right

because they adhere to the right rule or

principle of ethics so a lot of times

you'll hear this referred to as a

rule-based ethical theory versus a

consequences based do consequences

matter in deontological ethics of course

they do

so what we do in the

in kantian or deontological ethics is we

find out whether or not we're permitted

to do something and we might be

permitted to do more than one thing and

then we can look at the consequences of

that so consequences absolutely do

matter but they don't determine what is

right or wrong alone right you can

factor them in but they are not the

deciding factors because you are never

permitted to do something

that is atrocious so

elizabeth anscum philosopher famously

said for men to choose to kill the

innocent as a means to their ends is

always murder and she was actually

referring to that um in the context

at her time of nuclear war and that was

that was right before the bombing of

hiroshima and nagasaki and she was

saying that you cannot justify that for

men to choose to kill the innocent as a

means to their ends is always murder

always wrong

we could say that no matter how much

good could come of it no matter how

people it might

save you can't poke a baby in the eye

with a red hot fire poker just to hear a

sizzle or boiling a baby alive is simply

wrong it does not matter what the

consequences are for some things some

things are wrong because they violate a

moral rule but you might be wondering

from whence cometh the rules if you're a

16th century

you might be wondering that or in other

words you might wonder where do these

rules come from and there's been two

traditional answers we

have talked about one already god

through divine commands we've seen what

the problems are through that and then

uh reason and that's what

kant said we can find them through

reason not that he didn't accept god he

did he believed in god

but he thought that we could get the

ethical rules through our reason alone

and we didn't need commands

we talked about already so i won't go

over them again the problems with

divine command theory but remember there

was one issue that i said that was

that i told you uh well maybe this isn't

much of a problem i said look

different people within a religion

disagree on what's right or wrong so i

used to go to a church when i was

religious that had been doing same-sex

unions since the 70s i had gone to

another church who

to this day believes that it's immoral

for uh homosexuals to

marry or to be together or to love each

other or anything like that and so and

those were two christians because i was

a christian those were two christian

religions right and so there's

disagreements within religions there's

disagreements outside of religions you

know muslims disagree with christians

and jews jews disagree jews and muslims

disagree with christians about the

nature of the godhead all those kind of

things right

and so um you have these disagreements

and i told you well that wasn't much of

a problem for divine command theory but

they could be a problem if we're saying

the rules come from a god because then

we just don't know what they are and we

need to know what they are to know what

to do in the case of the ontological

rule-based ethics right so our focus is

going to be on this idea of reason then

how reason can

generate the rules of morality uh before

i do that i have to

because i'm going to explain kant's view

of this i have to make a distinction

that he makes between what we call

hypothetical and categorical imperatives

so you might remember the word

imperative from your

elementary school and

hopefully not high school but whenever

you learn grammar

you learned about imperative so if i

were to say open the door close the door

do your homework those are commands

those are what we call imperatives so

we're talking about two types of

imperative two types of commands here

we're talking about hypothetical and you

might have heard that word before

hypothetical you know it's like i'm

gonna give you a hypothetical situation

imagine that we could fly you know uh

and then categorical um and those are

universal kind of things and so

kant makes these distinctions between

hypothetical and categorical

both of these ideas are meant to

describe the role of reason in making a

decision one holds that reason is

instrumental i mean that means it can be

used as an instrument to help us achieve

our goals but it cannot set the goals so

something like if you want to be a

doctor then you should go to medical

school you should go to medical school

doesn't apply unless i want to be a

doctor because why would i go to medical

school otherwise right maybe i just want

to learn something or whatever but they

should part doesn't really apply and so

that's the hypothetical the other

categorical holds that reason both

determines

the goals and how to get there so

including all the ends and goals of

morality so let me say a little more

about hypothetical imperatives

they state what you should do given a

goal that you already have they're not

setting the goals they're not telling

you what you should what goals you

should have

it's telling you what goals you should

have if you are what you should do if

you have another goal so if you want to

make a good grade in this class you

should work hard on your essays right

you should work hard on the reflections

if you want to become an attorney you

should go to law school because you need

to go to law school to become an

attorney

the should part of these conditionals

only apply if you have that particular

goal

i can't tell you you should go to law

school unless you want if you want to be

a teacher right

you don't need to go to law school you

can but that's not usually a way of

going about being a teacher

if you want to be an engineer i'm not

going to tell you you should go to law

school if you want to be a doctor i'm

not going to tell you should go to law

school that only applies the should part

you should do this and that's what

morality is about right this is what you

should do the should part only applies

if the if part

is true of you

if you don't care about making a good

grade in the class and then you take it

pass or fail and you just want a passing

grade then you don't need to work that

hard on all the assignments in the class

right

so the should part only applies if the

if part does right

categorical imperatives on the other

hand that's imperative that's

hypothetical categorical imperatives

tell you what you should do

full stop not if blah blah blah blah

this is what you should do they don't

depend on whatever goals you have they

only depend on reason and they apply to

everyone who is rational these are

things like thou shalt not kill all of

the

ten commandments in the hebrew bible

christian old testament um are uh are

categorical imperatives they're not

saying if you want you know

to whatever

you should

cheat on

your wife or covet your neighbor's wife

it's just saying that um

this is what you should do full stop no

matter what you are

you don't get the option you don't set

your goals now kant

gives us five different formulas for

arriving at the rules that the moral

rules that we should follow um we're

only going to look at two of those

different formulations in his writings

although like i said he does five

there's three others that we're not

going to look at he thinks all of them

will give us the same list of rules we

don't need the five different ways of

talking about the categorical imperative

he says there's one categorical

imperative and that will generate the

rest of the moral rules and he gives us

five different formulations of that

we're going to talk about two we're

going to talk about the universal law of

nature formula and we'll talk about the

humanity as an n formula i'm going to

say them right now

and then tell you what each of them are

about

first the universal law of nature says

quote act only in accordance with that

maxim through which you can at the same

time will that it become a universal law

i'm going to explain each part of that

later but it says act only in accordance

with that maximum through which you can

uh at the same time will that have

become a universal law that's the

universal law of nature formula now the

humanity as an n formula says acts so

that you treat humanity whether in your

own person or in that of another always

as an end and never as a means only and

you'll see different ways that people

translate the german of that

but that's those are the ideas of it

okay so now let me explain what each of

those mean and how they generate the

moral laws first let's start with the

universal law of nature formula

let me say it one more time act only in

accordance with that maxim through which

you can at the same time will that it

become a universal law you might be

saying what is a maximum what is a

maximum i know that maximum magazine

that's not it so i go only in a quarters

with a maximum maximum is just a

principle or rule something i do not lie

do not steal that kind of thing

so

he's saying that as we come up with

actions we come up with a maxim a

general rule or principle and

we have to

put it to a test to see if we can will

that that maxim that general rule or uh

principle that we're about to act on

can it can we wish it consistently

logically to be a universal law so it's

a logical test it's not can we just want

it to be but is it logically possible

for us to have that maxim that we're

about to act on be

universally applied the idea is that

categorical imperatives are universal if

you can't consistently will that the

maxim be applied universal the rule that

you're about to act on be applied

universally if that results in some kind

of logical contradiction then you should

not act on that maxim let me tell you it

kind of suggests a procedure the the

categorical imperative uh the universal

uh

n formula um

the first thing that you do is you think

about the action you're about to perform

and make it into a universal maximum i'm

about to cheat on um my final paper

right for dr mcmichael um

it is okay to

cheat on a final paper if

you waited to the last minute to do it

that's the maximum right that's the

principle that you're about to act on

now you want to say what if that were

universal for everybody that everybody

knew it that everybody acted on that

maxim well if it were universal

then the the cheating really wouldn't

work would it uh you only can get away

with cheating is most people do it

correctly right cheating doesn't help

you if

other people are so i'm not going to

assign something that can be cheated on

if i know that people it's a universally

accepted principle that you can cheat on

things

let's take lying as another instance um

if

i'm going

you're going to lie to me

lies only work if i believe you but if i

know it's a universal maxim that you can

lie to get yourself out of trouble and

i'm not going to believe you so it's

logically inconsistent so that's the

second part of the procedure you think

about the action you're about to perform

you see if it would be logically

possible for you to will that everyone

acts on it universally if it's logically

possible for you to will that everyone

acts on it then it's permissible you're

allowed to do it to act on that maximum

if it's not logically possible that

everyone acts on it then it's not

possible to act on it okay

again let me give you an example of

lying imagine that it's your to your

events to lie to me about your homework

uh you universalize the act that you're

considering to um

to act on your universalized into the

maxim it is permissible to lie when it

is to your advantage okay

now that's the maximum you're going to

act on your counter it's to my advantage

to lie to my professor about my

assignment and so

it's okay to lie when uh it's to your

advantage to do so

now you want to test it that's the first

of all you take the action you're going

to do turn it into a maxim and now you

want to test it by the logical test you

say can it be universal if everyone act

acted on that maxim then no one would

have a good reason to believe almost

anything anyone else said if it's ever

to their advantage to lie i wouldn't

believe you right

i you need me to believe you in order

for a lie to work so it would be

ineffective so you can't logically wish

that

everybody acted on that maximum because

then the lie wouldn't work for you

therefore it's a contradiction you can't

practice it universally without a

contradiction so you're making yourself

an exception to the rule and this

version of the categorical imperative

the universal law of nature says that

you cannot

act on anything that makes yourself an

exception so that would not be permitted

okay in the next video i'll talk about

the humanity as an end formula