Essay Questions

What is meant by Kant's Deontological approach to ethical decision making?

Kant’s deontology argues that what makes an action right or wrong cannot be judged on its consequences, but rather on the motives of the individual who carries out the action. This moral motivation comes from duty, which we are bound by reason to follow. Kant makes a distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives, and argues that morality can be summed up as a categorical imperative. Crucially he points out that as rational human beings it is our duty to obey this approach to ethical decision making.

What is a 'Maxim'?

A maxim is a statement that expresses a truth or rule of conduct. Kant uses this word in his formations of the categorical imperative.

What is the difference between a Categorical and Hypothetical Imperative?

While hypothetical imperatives apply to an agent that wishes to attain certain ends (is consequential), categorical imperatives are unconditional and must be obeyed by the agent. It is for this reason that Kant considers morality to be a categorical imperative.

What is the First Categorical Imperative?

The First Categorical Imperative claims that one must "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law". For example, it is clear that one should not steal from friends as if one were to universalise "you should steal from friends" then the whole concept of private property property would vanish, making the original maxim self-refuting.

What is the Second Categorical Imperative?

The Second Categorical Imperative claims we should make moral decisions “so as to treat humanity, both in your own person, and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means”. This imperative refers specifically to the treatment of humanity in making moral decisions, as Kant argues that if an action uses a human life as a means to an end then it isnot permissible. For example, in a hypothetical situation where the only way to find the cure for a disease was to seriously harm another man, Kant would argue that such a situation could never be justified as the man is being used as a tool in some ulterior motive. The benefits of this over a theory such a consequentialism are clear, as while an act utilitarian could justify the use of the man as a tool to discover the cure for disease by appealing to maximised pleasure or “the greater good”, Kant’s ethical theory underpins why this feels unethical, by appealing to our rationality.

Outline a major problem with Kant's Deontological approach to ethical decision making?

While Kant's deontology avoids the ethical pitfalls of consequentialism, it suffers from the major problem of conflicting duties. This is illustrated in the thought problem of the murderous axe-man, whereby you imagine that a manaical killer arrives at your door requesting the location of your friend. It would appear to be a duty to prevent the death of one's friend, however under Kant's Deontology, the moral thing to do would be to tell the axeman their location (despite this likely resulting in their death). This is because one cannot universalise the maxim "tell lies", and as it is intentions (not consequences) that matter, one is impelled to tell the axeman following Kant's approach. However intuitively this appears immoral, and thus highlights a crucial problem with Kant's reasoning