Greg Detre
Thursday, May 24, 2001
Jeremy Watkins, Hertford
Ethics V
Does Kant satisfactorily explain why we should not make
false promises?
Kant � Groundwork ch 1 + 2
Onora Nell (O�Neill) � Acting on Principle ch 5
Onora O�Neill � �Kant�s ethics� in Companion to ethics, Singer (ed)
Bernard Williams � Ethics and the limits of philosophy, ch 4
objective is not �real�, but dictated necessarily by reason
As O�Neill stresses, �Kantian ethics� has come to stand for a very wide variety of positions, some of which are based only loosely on Kant�s system or premises.
the major question for Kant is �How ought I to live?�
It is enough to say that we straddle his distinction between nuomena and phenemona, and that Kant considered that this opened things up enough for us to act as though we are free.
Kant recognised that we cannot be moral agents unless we are autonomous agents, which seems difficult to square with our notions of causality in nature. In order to understand Kant�s solution, we have to briefly consider his metaphysics.
Kant also considers suicide, arguing that a prohibition against commiting suicide is contained implicitly in the Categorical Imperative. This is less clear than the case of false promising, and raises an important question. Frederick the Great�s preparations to commit suicide if captured during wartime lest his people should have to pay exorbitantly for his ransom � act-description � that would Frederick treating himself as a means for his people
how does Kant address amoralists???
aren�t there acts that are allowable by the �universal law� formulation of the Categorical Imperative since they don�t lead to a logical contradiction??? or what does the �otherwise unacceptable� bit cover???
how does Kant derive the Categorical Imperative???
does Kant establish the universalisability and objectivity of reason???
are humans really even �rational� beings themselves???
is moral motivation an issue for Kant � after all, where does our good will come from (why should we have it � see amoralism)???
is one being morally better if one is acting out of duty despite inclination, or in line with it � i.e. does the undesirability of the action make it more moral, or make no difference???
where does the Categorical Imperative come from???
is Kant using a naturalistic argument to argue ttt we must be aspiring to something other than happiness???
how would the moral system for a rational alien be different???
how am I supposed to know if I want something to be a universal law, except by its consequences (in the cases unlike false promises, where we can�t deduce immorality from logical inconsistency)???
does Kant�s ethics work for a hermit (i.e. someone for whom there are no other ends/rational beings to get in the way)??? I assume that his duty becomes almost entirely self-related
what does it have to say about animal rights (since they�re non-rational)???
the false promise argument only applies to a sub-class of ethics � that is, Kant doesn�t use the Golden Rule, but talks of debasing the notions of promising entirely
what is reverence???
false promising means premeditated, right???