AulaDeValores - Kantian ethics

IS THERE SOMETHING Absolutely GOOD?

One of the central questions of Ethics is to know what is the best and more important thing to seek. What is it that we must seek to be happy? Ancient philosophers gave some answers to this question:

- Aristotle reasoned that human happiness is achieved when people do what only people can do: know. The greatest happiness is in achieving knowledge and in attaining virtue .
- Epicurus reasoned that knowledge is good because it gives us some kind of pleasure. The pleasure is then the key to happiness and therefore the best.

Kant wonders if knowledge or pleasure are always good.

- Doesn't it sometimes happen that knowledge makes us unhappy? And doesn't it also happen that knowledge can be a bad thing, depending on who has that knowledge?
- Doesn't it sometimes happen that being guided by the pursuit of pleasure leads to unhappiness? And is it not also the case that no matter how much pleasure something may give us, that something is still something bad?

Ultimately, Kant doubts that we can affirm that knowledge or pleasure are always good. Furthermore, Kant doubts that any result we seek with our actions can always be good. On the contrary, there will always be situations in which that result is not the best or can even turn into a bad thing. Of course Aristotle and Epicurus were aware that knowledge or pleasure could be harmful in some situations, and their theories try to solve those cases.

However, Kant believes that the justification of our morals should not be so complicated. There must be a simple way to express what is good, what we must do to be good people. Perhaps with a single idea, a very general norm, we can summarize all the moral norms that have existed, exist today and will exist in the future. Perhaps underneath the different moral standards there is a common and central moral idea.

Kant's ethics attemps to derive and explain all our moral rules with a single and simple, most general rule. They key to find it is instead of looking at the results of our actions we should look at the motives that drives us to do something. Then perhaps we can find something that is always good and that is the key to all our morality. Instead of looking for the good "out there", instead of looking at the results of our actions, perhaps we should look for it "within ourselves", in the motives that push us to act.

THE GOOD WILL

Consider the following situation: three people (we can call them A, B and C) are waiting to pay at the supermarket checkout. There they find these solidarity cards:

Person A

Arriving at the supermarket checkout,

person A decides to buy

a solidarity card.

Person B

Arriving at the supermarket checkout,

person B decides to buy

a solidarity card.

Both A and B have done a good deed, but are A and B good people? To answer this second question, we must know what intention each one of them had, what motive has prompted their action.

Person A

Person A lives in the city where the supermarket is, knows everyone who is currently shopping at the supermarket.

Let us suppose that A has bought the solidarity card because:

Others do it and you want to be like them, you don't want to be criticized.
Maybe he has applied for a mortgage and the bank manager is behind in the queue of the cashier.

Person B

Person B is passing through: he has entered the supermarket in a city that is on his way to the beach. He doesn't know anyone from the supermarket.

B does not have the same reasons as A:

Maybe he doesn't care what other customers think.
He does not have any pending business with anyone from the supermarket.

From a moral point of view, Is A a better person than B? Is B a better person than A?

It is clear that person A has bought the card because:

- He or she wants to be accepted by their neighbors. If you didn't care about their opinion, you might not buy the card.
- Or maybe because he or she wants to get the mortgage. If you didn't need the money, you might not buy the card.

It seems clear that A is acting out of selfish motives, while B seems to have nothing to gain by buying the card.

Do we know enough about person B to judge whether he or she is a good person? Let's continue with our example:

Person B

Arriving at the supermarket checkout,

person B decides to buy

a solidarity card.

Person C

Arriving at the supermarket checkout,

person C decides to buy

a solidarity card.

Both B and C are passing through the city where the supermarket is. They are not going back to that supermarket, and yet they have both done a good deed .

Person B

Person B enjoys helping others. It feels good when you do.

Would B help if he didn't enjoy it? Maybe yes or maybe no.

Person C

Person C does not particularly enjoy when it helps. She is shy and uncomfortable getting attention and being thanked.

Despite this, C has decided to help because he considers it his moral obligation.

Are B and C equally good people? Knowing the motives of B and C, do you think one of them deserves higher praise? If you were to need help, who would you trust the most to help you? Would you choose B or C?

Example's conclusions

Kant would tell us that if we think about it a little bit, we will come to the following conclusions:

1. The action done by both A and B and by C is correct , it is in accordance with moral duty . Let's accept for the moment that helping other people is a moral duty.
2. However, person A is not good for having bought the aid card, because he has acted out of selfishness : he bought the card hoping to obtain personal benefit from it. Without that selfish motive, I would not compare the card.
3. Neither is person B good for having bought the aid card, because he acted out of inclination: he bought the card because he likes to help; If he didn't like it, he might not help. Without that feeling good or enjoyment of helping, I would not buy the card.
4. Person C is the only person we can consider morally good: his intention or motive has not been selfish nor has he done it out of pleasure or inclination, but he has done it because it is his moral obligation, because it is his moral duty. Regardless of any interests, preconditions or wishes, person C purchases the card.

Hence, Kant's answer to the question: when do we really mean well? is: only when our intention is to do our duty. On the contrary, our intention is not completely good, even when we act correctly, when we do it out of personal interest (selfishness) or because we like to do it (inclination).

MORAL DUTY, MORAL OBLIGATION

Once we have clarified that goodwill consists in fulfilling our moral duty, the question now is: what is our moral duty? How can we know what our moral obligation is?

But before answering that question we have this other one: What is an obligation? When do you have it?

Let's look at three kinds of obligations:

- Personal obligations
- Social obligations
- Legal obligations

To later introduce the concept of moral obligations.

Personal obligations

Consider the following examples:

- My teacher has given us a mandatory test to the whole class.
- My parents force me to get home before eleven.

In these two examples, specific people place obligations on us because they are students or their children.

We will have these obligations as long as we remain under their authority, we will cease to have them when we are not under it.

And although we have these obligations, we are not forced to fulfill them. We are free to take the exam or not or to arrive at one hour or another.

But if we do not comply, there will be consequences against us: we may suspend or have a punishment.

Social obligations

Now consider these examples:

- When sitting at the table to eat, we must use cutlery and not hands
- In the procession, all the brothers have the obligation to wear the habit of their brotherhood.
- All members of the association have the obligation to pay the fee.

In these examples, it is social groups (a family, a brotherhood, an association, etc.) the ones that place obligations on those who want to be part of them. These obligations are based on custom or the authority of those who lead these groups.

We will have these obligations as long as we are members of these social groups, we will stop having them when we are not members of that brotherhood or that association.

And although we have these obligations, we are not forced to fulfill them. We are free to dress as we want or not to pay.

But if we do not comply, there will be consequences against us: we may be expelled or we will have a sanction.

Legal obligations

Finally, consider these other examples:

- As a resident of my city, I have the obligation to pay municipal taxes.
- All drivers have the obligation to respect the highway code.

Now it is public authorities such as municipalities, autonomous communities or the national government that impose these obligations on us. These obligations are based on rules and laws issued by the national Parliament, by the regional parliaments and by the municipalities.

We will have these obligations as long as we are neighbors of a city, we are in an Autonomous Community or we are Spanish; we will cease to have them when we change residence, Autonomous Community or country.

And although we have these obligations, we are not forced to fulfill them. We are free to pay or not pay and to drive as we please.

But if we do not comply with them, there will be consequences against us: we will be fined or even sentenced to jail.

Summary

People have obligations with:

- other persons
- social groups
- authorities.

Just as we accept (contract) obligations, we can release (exonerate ourselves) from them when those who try to impose obligations on us have no authority over us. Having an obligation does not automatically imply that we fulfill it : we are free to fulfill our obligations or not.

Not fulfilling an obligation imposed by others implies facing consequences:

- A punishment or a reprimand, in the case of breaching a personal obligation.
- The social criticism, ridicule, exclusion or expulsion from the group, in the case of social obligations.
- A sanction , a fine or jail, in the case of breaching an obligation imposed by an authority.

MORAL OBLIGATIONS

Study these obligations now:

- On his deathbed, I promised my father to take care of the garden he planted.
- Every time they ask for blood donors, I feel the obligation to go to donate blood.
- Although I was alone when I found the wallet, I have an obligation to return it.
- We all have an obligation to take care of the environment.

Who imposes these obligations upon us? To whom do we have these obligations?

When can we escape from them? What are the consequences of not complying with them?

Faced with the obligations imposed by others (other people, the society, the authorities), there are also obligations that we put on ourselves (they are self-imposed). This is one of the two essential conditions of moral obligations.

What are our moral obligations? How to know what our moral obligations are?

Kant's answer is related to the time in which he lived. Kant is an Enlightenment thinker. The 18th century is called "The Age of Enlightenment" because in the 18th century the light of human reason is relied upon to illuminate humanity's path towards progress. This confidence in human reason means that our moral obligations cannot be imposed on us:

- For other people
- By society
- By authority
- By religion
- By ... any person or authority other than ourselves.

Quite the contrary, our moral obligations have to be:

- Our own : we impose them on ourselves. They are obligations that arise from the will of each one.
- Rational : they are the result of rationally analyzing our options. And human reason is one, the same for all people.

If our obligations have to come out of our own reason, then we have to put aside personal benefit (selfishness) and the likes of each one (inclinations). This agrees with the above: goodwill excludes selfishness and personal taste.

In addition, if we took into account personal interests and preferences, then the obligations of each of us would be different from those of others, each would have theirs. That is why the second fundamental characteristic of moral obligations is that they have to be universal: the same for all rational beings. If we base ourselves solely on reason, the obligations will be common to all rational beings, that is, they will be the same for all of us.

Therefore, the key to knowing what our moral obligations are these two characteristics:

Moral obligations arise from our own will, we autoimpose them upon us.
Moral obligations are universal, the same ones for everyone. When we think we are acting morally right, we want all people to act like us.

When we ask ourselves whether we should carry out a certain action or its opposite, for example if we can give an excuse when it suits us or if we should not do so, Kant proposes the following way of reasoning :

1. Imagine first that we all took the first alternative: make excuses whenever you want.
2. Imagine then that everyone took the second alternative: never make excuses.
3. Now reason about the possibility or the impossibility of both alternatives:

- if both alternatives are impossible, then you cannot choose either.
- If one of them is impossible, then you are morally obliged to choose the other alternative.
- If both alternatives are possible, then you are not morally obliged to follow either of them, it is not a moral decision. Perhaps there are other types of obligations or pressures on this decision, but it is not of a moral obligation.

Examples of moral reasoning

Example 1: Lying to get out of a hurry or not telling lies even if it suits you.

Let's imagine that no one lied when they were in a hurry. It is difficult for this to happen because we are all inclined to lie, but it is possible that this will happen.
Imagine that we all lied whenever we were in a hurry. In that situation, no one would believe anyone who was in a hurry, because we would all think "if I were in the same trouble, I would also lie." Therefore, it is impossible for all of us to lie, since the lie loses its purpose.

In conclusion, the only possible option is not to lie to get out of a hurry. We are morally obligated not to lie in a pinch. If we lie, we will not be doing our duty.

Example 2: Wear your hair long or wear it short.

Let's imagine we all had short hair. We may not like it (or we do), but this may happen.
Let's imagine that we all had long hair. We may not like it (or we do), but this may happen.

Since both options are possible, it is not a moral obligation to do one or the other, both are morally allowed according to Kant's theory.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Kant's ethical theory shows that, starting from the principle that moral obligations must be universal, they must be able to be followed by all of us, we can deduce many concrete moral obligations.

In general, we can reason and show that moral obligations (that is, obligations that we should place on ourselves) are all those that prohibit us from taking advantage of others for our own benefit, such as:

- To lie
- Steal
- Falsify
- Enslave people
- Defraud the Treasury

All these concrete obligations respond to a general principle that Kant expresses in different ways, although he understands that they all express the same idea:

- With the formula of the "categorical imperative".
- With the distinction between means and ends.

The categorical imperative

What is an imperative? An imperative is an order. But if we talk about morals, we are talking about orders that a person gives to himself . That is, we order ourselves to do certain things.

What does "categorical" mean? Something is categorical when it is not "hypothetical." And something is hypothetical when it includes a hypothesis or condition . For instance:

- I must eat less if I want to lose weight. I mean, if I don't want to lose weight, I can eat as much as I want. Only those people who accept the condition of wanting to lose weight have to eat less.
- I must not be late if I want to keep my job . I mean, if I don't want to keep my job, I can arrive any time I want. Only those people who accept the condition of wanting to keep their job have to worry about their arrival time at work.

Thus, a hypothetical imperative is an order that includes a condition: only those who accept the condition included in the imperative must obey the order.

However, a categorical imperative has no conditions. These are orders that a person gives himself without setting any initial conditions:

- I must try to help others. Regardless of the situation, of whom you ask for help, of the possible benefit that you get. I must try to help.
- I must not have slaves. Regardless of the time and the country in which I live, how I treat them, the possible benefit that I get. I must not have slaves.

Earlier we said that moral norms are norms that must be valid for all people. Regardless of the particular conditions of each one of us, the moral standards must be the same for all. Therefore, moral norms must be expressed as categorical imperatives. This is why Kant sums up his theory of moral norms like this:

Act in such a way that you can want that every rational being to act the same as you.

Means and ends

Since talking about hypothetical and categorical imperatives is complex and potentially confusing, and since Kant wants his message to reach everyone, he sometimes expresses his theory in other words: means and ends.

Something is a means when it is an instrument, an intermediate step towards something we really want, the end, the goal. Sometimes we can use a person as a means to our ends. For instance:

Win the friendship of my partner to get him to lend me his mobile. I am using my partner as a means to the end I really want: mobile.
Be nice to my neighbor to get his help later. I am using my neighbor to get his help.

These behaviors are not typical of someone who deserves to be called a good person. Using other people for personal gain is, according to Kant, a sign that we are acting immorally. For this reason, Kant also sums up his ethical theory in other words:

Do not treat others as a means to your purposes, but as ends in themselves.

Do not use others for your own benefit.

Justification of this general principle

Imagine that we all try to take advantage of others for our own benefit. If we all have that intention, who could we take advantage of? No one would be used because we would all be trying. Therefore, it is impossible for all of us to try to take advantage of others. It is a contradiction to want to take advantage of others and pretend that this is the norm that we all must follow. The alternative of not taking advantage of others is the only alternative from a moral point of view.

With these reasoning, Kant shows us a way of reasoning to know what our moral obligations are. Naturally, knowing what our moral obligations are is not the same as fulfilling them: we remain free and each of us must decide whether to fulfill them or whether we prefer to take advantage of others when we have a chance.

HUMAN EXPLOITATION: THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Unsustainable consumption of resources

Are Vacation Cruises Sustainable?
Can I use all the water I can afford? Sustainable gardens
Is it ethical to eat all the meat you want? Reduction of meat consumption
Can I use all the energy I can afford? Ethical energy savings
Recycling and reusing:

Kant Test English