Next reading: p.

337-369
Key question: How can we say that there are a
universal standard of judgment, free will and
moral responsibility, altruism, and objective
value of goodness?

Deontology of morality
Utilitarianism is a teleological theory: value of
action is determined by the consequence. = as
far as one intends to bring about a good
consequence, one’s action is evaluated as good.
 In other words, action is good if and only if
it produces a good result.
 The value of action is conditioned by its
consequences.

By contrast, deontological theory of morality

has nothing to do with consequences.
It is unconditional: morality is unconditional.

Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804)

- Modern philosopher
- “German Idealism”
Descartes (rationalism) – dogmatism
Locke (empiricism) –skepticism

Both end up with Hume’s skepticism: certain

knowledge is impossible.
Kant: overcome skepticism and establish the
system of knowledge.
- Knowledge of nature
- Knowledge of morality
- Knowledge of beauty
In terms of morality, we can have an objective
theory of moral goodness.

Deontology
Deo= to bind = duty: morality should be based
on the intention to perform one’s duty.

“Ought”
Hypothetical “ought”
Unconditional “ought”

Hypothetical “ought”: You ought to do X if

you want something to happen.  “ought” is
conditioned by IF.

What you do / why you do

(save a drowning person / I want to be famous
I want to kill him
I was asked to do it)
 The meaning of “ought” is particular and
relative, not universal

Unconditional “ought”: You ought to do X.

universal
Anywhere
Anytime
No matter what
Kant’s “ought” is this unconditional, universal
“ought.” – it presents the intrinsic value of
action, and the sense of morality is
independent of consequence.
The basis of such an unconditional “ought” is
a sense of duty.

In other words, if you take an action without a

sense of duty, the value of your action only
depends on your personal motives, on
particular situations.

Why did you save the person?

- Because he is my friend (my compassion)
- Because he is a murderer of my family
(motive to kill)
- Because his mother asked me (particular
situation)
Kant says that none of these can be the
REASON why you should save the person. =
your action is not good ENOUGH.
Even though you WANT to save, it’s not good
enough because morality is a matter of
OUGHT, not WANT.
Example of the two soldiers (p. 403)
What is really evaluated is A’s intention to
perform duty. Not consequence.

To put it in another way, morality is absolute.

It has to be based on the absolute ground, not
personal emotions, particular situations…etc.

“Thou shalt not lie.” No matter what.

Q: How can we derive such an absolute sense

of morality?
 We derive it from pure reason.
(p.406)
 Pure reason: we have such a faculty.
The sense of obligation is given apriori in
the concept of reason.
“apriori” means prior to experience.
Namely, we can have a sense of moral
obligation (ought) independently of any
empirical facts.

Pure reason – concept of duty

 Rational understanding of this duty is
much stronger than any emotional
inclinations.
 That’s why Kant thinks that our emotions
and feelings don’t matter for moral
judgment.

The Good Will

Kant distinguishes;
Natural tendency (psychological mechanism)
Pure reason
Natural tendency (=we usually want pleasures)
cannot be the ground of morality because it is
changeable; it depends on situations; it is not
unconditional.

Our natural gifts;

Do these have unconditional value of goodness?
Intelligence
Wit
Courage

Power
Wealth
Honor

Value of these is not determined by themselves.

The unconditionally good thing?

The Good Will (p. 408)

The absolute ground of moral goodness.
Only insofar as the good will works, values of
other things are determined.

Kant says;
Intention to act in accordance with moral law
Law: absolute and necessary principle of moral
action  this is imminent in pure reason itself
Q: How can we know such a moral law?

A: by categorical imperatives.

Categorical imperative:
Act only according to that maxim by which you
can at the same time will that it should become
a universal law. (p.410)

Action: help a person fix a flat tire?

Maxim: help a person in need?
Universalized maxim: all people should help
people in need?

<How to test your action>

Step 1: action  maxim  universal principle
“Should all people always do X?”
No or Yes
(contradiction) morally acceptable
Wrong
If Yes, go to the next step.

Step 2: “Should all people always omit X?”

No or Yes
(contradiction) not moral
Morally
acceptable

1. flat tire

2. suicide
 - I want to kill myself.
- I am bored of my life.
- I am not pleased.
- I want to please myself.
- I love myself.

3. Borrow money, can’t repay, still borrow?

Concept of promise

4. Borrow money, can’t repay, kill him?

5. Borrow money, can’t repay, steal?

6. Hotel Rwanda: leave the hotel?

The point is what if everyone takes the action?

Important: don’t think about the consequence
You should think about
the rationality of universal principle.

Another point: you action should be taken

because it is a performance of duty.
Not because you will be rewarded.
Not because you love the person.

Strength of Kant’s argument

The universal principle can reveal the
intrinsic value of action.
(Utilitarianism; the consequence
matters. If the consequence is good,
your action is good. Then, the intrinsic
value of your action is not questioned.)
Objections to deontological theory
1. Exclusion of feeling; Kant completely
excludes our feelings and emotions
from the moral judgment.
2. Abstraction from real world
A. Kant does not tell “what to do” in a
real situation. But he rather tells
“how to make a principle.”  it’s
not clear what to do in a real
situation.
B. It doesn’t work in a situation where
rationality is not working.
Example; homeless person.
Homeless person – outside the
rationality (because rationality is
 secured in society where we have a
sense of property.)

Property – rationality- reason-

rational judgment
If you are OUTSIDE of all of these,
then, the RATIONAL judgment
cannot be applied to someone
outside. Where the judgment is
whether be rational or not, Kant’s
theory does not work because it
works ONLY INSIDE rational
society.

Final exam; December 17

3 questions, and you answer 3.

1. Utilitarianism
2. Deontology
3. Challenges to morality