Philosophical Issues - Assignment Example

Disclaimer: While I have written many of the answers in my own words, portions of the answers are verbatim from credible resources. These answers are intended for use as a study tool – not as something to be turned in. Thank you. 1. Kant says that only a good will is good “without limitation” and “good in itself.” Explain what it means. There are many good qualities a person can have. Talents of the mind, qualities of temperament, and gifts of fortune are good when they stem from a good will, but they are good in a limited way. A good will itself is the only thing that has no limits to its goodness; it is always good. It is good in itself because a good will is good (while qualities stemming from a good will are good because they are from the good will). Actions and qualities can only be good if the person using them is using them with a good will. A good will is good in of itself because it does not depend on something else to be good; it truly IS good. Kant argued that the source of the good lies not in anything outside the human subject, either in nature or given by God, but rather is only the good will itself. A good will is one that acts from duty in accordance with the universal moral law that the autonomous human being freely gives itself. Kant explains that the autonomy of the will is the capacity of the will to be a law to itself, because the will is the agent through which the maxim of an action can become universal law. 2. Kant thinks that many virtues, such as courage, resolution, self-control, are not good in themselves. Not even pleasure is good in itself. Why? Summarize his argument against the intrinsic value of these things. Many virtues are not good in of themselves because they are only good if they are done with a good will. Without a good will, they may be done for “evil” purposes, or other reasons that are not for good. 3. Reconstruct and critically discuss Kant’s argument that the value of practical reason is not linked with happiness. In every area of life, instrumental reasoning is undertaken in pursuit of agents’ chosen ends: these choices orient and require determinate means-ends reasoning. Choices may variously endorse or defer to self-interest, religious dogma, established ideology, community ‘values’ or some version of self-development. Even those who propose an account of human flourishing or happiness as the foundation and context for moral reasoning do not escape this arbitrariness, given that they lack an adequately determinate account of human happiness or flourishing. If one is motivated by happiness alone, then had conditions not conspired to align ones duty with ones own happiness one would not have done ones duty. 4. What is the supreme principle of morality, according to Kant? The supreme moral principle is the formula of universal law. Kants supreme moral principle or "categorical imperative": I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law. The point of the supreme principle of morality is to provide a rule of pure practical reason of moral philosophy. Kant makes a variety of assumptions in arguing that there is a supreme principle of morality. Some of these assumptions include: 1) that there are universal moral laws, 2) that there are principles of morality which exist independently of the situations in which moral decisions are made, 3) that logically necessary moral truths can be determined only by reason and not by experience, 4) that any moral philosophy which is logically valid must be based on pure reason, 5) that the motive of an action is more important than the consequences of the action, 6) that the moral value of an action should only be judged by the motives of the action and not by the consequences of the action, and 7) that in order to be good, an action must only be performed for the sake of a moral law and not for some other purpose. The validity of Kant’s theory of a universal law of morality may be related to whether these assumptions are accepted or rejected. 5. What are maxims? How should we choose our maxims? Give some examples of a maxim. An agent’s maxim is his subjective principle of human actions. A maxim is what the agent believes is his reason to act. Maxims should be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature. In order for the maxim of each of these actions to become a universal law of morality, the actions themselves must not be self-contradictory. An example of a maxim is “I will lie for personal benefit.” The action (lying) plus the motivation (personal benefit) equals a maxim. Another example is “I will share food for his benefit.” 6. What is the imperative? Find differences between the categorical and hypothetical imperative by Kant. Kant defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative would compel action in a given circumstance: If I wish to satisfy my thirst, then I must drink something. A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. While the categorical imperative is done in an obligatory fashion to fulfill duty, the hypothetical imperative is done by thought and choice in order to fulfill desire. 7. Give at least two formulations of the categorical imperative. -First formulation: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” -Second formulation: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.” -Third formulation: “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.” 8. What judgments does Kant consider as a foundation of ethics? Why? Kant considers the categorical imperative to be the foundation of ethics. The categorical imperative is linked to duty, and only duty can be seen in terms of moral worth. 9. What type of judgment is represented by the categorical imperative? Moral judgment and pure practical reason is represented by the categorical imperative. 10. Why is it morally forbidden to neglect development of one’s talents, according to Kant? How is this obligation different from the obligation not to commit suicide or lie? Kant says that developing one’s talents is to be considered a moral duty, so neglecting development is forbidden. Kant identifies natural goods as both a means to and exercise of moral character because developing them fulfill the positive duty to be worthy of humanity. The perfection of our abilities is a duty in itself, an integral part of the process of striving for the highest purpose of nature, our moral perfection. The obligation not to commit suicide is not about becoming worthy of humanity but has to do with the duty to merely exist as a human. The obligation not to lie is subjective because it can be done for desire rather than duty (example – Lying makes me feel bad). 11. Who belongs to the Kingdom of Ends? The kingdom of ends is a hypothetical state of man derived from the categorical imperative. Rational beings are defined as beings who are capable of moral deliberation; they can choose to act by maxims that have universality. It is from this point of view that they must judge themselves and their actions. This conception of the categorical imperative would lead to another - the kingdom of ends. By the phrase kingdom, he means the "union of different rational beings in a system by common laws." Since it is through laws that consequences are evaluated based on their universal validity, he states that we can conceive of a systematic whole that includes both the rational beings as ends in themselves, rather than simply means to other ends, and the unique ends which these rational beings may aspire to. This systematic whole is the kingdom of ends. People can only belong to the kingdom of ends when they give universal laws unto it, and are subject to those same laws, and all laws within. Such rational beings must regard themselves simultaneously as sovereign, when making laws, and as subject, when obeying them. Morality exists in the action of all universal law which can make the kingdom of ends possible. This universal law must be first capable of being universalized completely, and being given its power from a rational beings own will - not exercising rule over it. 12. What does create a moral worth of action? Moral worth appears to require not only that ones actions be motivated by duty, but also that no other motives, even love or friendship, cooperate. What is crucial in actions that express a good will is that the motivational structure of the agent be arranged so as to give considerations of duty priority over all other interests. 13. Give examples of actions: a) from duty and b) according to duty. Acts done from the motive of duty have moral worth. Acts done in accordance with duty are supererogatory. a) To act solely from duty is to do what one should just because one should do that act. To act from duty is to act solely from respect of the moral law, or the mere universality of one’s maxim. Examples: a shopkeeper giving correct change to a customer; a man miserable man choosing not to commit suicide because it is his duty to preserve his own life and live b) Actions from other motivating principles such as sympathy are only “fortunate …to aim at something generally useful and consistent with duty.” A man helps someone else because it makes him feel good. 14. What is duty? Propose a short definition using your own words. Duty is obligatory moral action. 15. What is wrong with morality derived from examples? The problem is that everyone has different desires at different times; while one thing is “good” and “dutiful” for one person at one time, it may not be “good” and “dutiful” for someone else at that time. Morality comes from the good will of each individual – not from witnessing what other people are doing. Kant recommends that one take advantage of the natural human urge to morally evaluate other peoples actions. By challenging students to consider whether a given action is right or wrong, their moral judgment is honed and they are given a chance to feel moral admiration and repulsion appropriately for admirable and repulsive deeds. We must take care to present them with examples in which a person does good purely out of duty, for these will best incite them to reverence and cause them to choose to act in a principled fashion. If we try to mix self-interest and morality, we will not succeed either in making the moral motive clear or in strongly motivating the student. A person who accepts the moral when it is in his best interests is less impressive and inspiring than a person who defies self-interest to follow his moral principles. Nor ought we to rely on examples of people who go above and beyond the call of duty. These examples may emotionally enthuse the student for a time, but will not help him develop a stable commitment to fulfilling everyday obligations. 16. Why does Kant suggest transition from common rational cognition toward the metaphysics of morals? What does the metaphysics of morals define? The metaphysics of morals defines that actions are only moral when they are performed from duty. The transition from common rational cognition toward the metaphysics of morals will allow actions to have moral worth and thus will allow people to have freedom. (Kant argues that people can have freedom by choosing to do moral things and choosing not to do immoral things). 17. Can principles of morality be found a priori in pure rational concepts? What does “a priori” mean? A priori is knowledge that is independent of experience (example – you don’t have to know any people that are bachelors to know that all bachelors are unmarried). This is the opposite of a posterior, which is knowledge that depends on experience (example – interacting with bachelors might lead you to the knowledge that some bachelors are lonely). Kant argues an a priori basis for morality. Principles of morality are not found a priori in pure rational concepts because rationalization is based on experience. 18. What does our common reason recognize before an action can be taken? Postulates of Pure Practical/Common Reason  -  Those things that we must postulate in order to follow pure practical reason. Kant places God and immortality in this category. Without God, there is nothing to guarantee that following the moral law will produce the highest good of happiness proportional to morality, and without immortality, there is not enough time for us to achieve perfect morality. 19. What does our pure reason recognize? Our pure reason recognizes antinomies (contradictory particular claims about reality from the structure of our experiences of the world, such as finitude v. infinity, simplicity v. complexity, freedom v. determinism, and necessity v. contingency). 20. Does pure theoretical reason have limitations? Although pure reason alone provides knowledge, it does have limitations. Using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions. It is also important to note that Reason can give us only the "pragmatic laws of free action through the senses", but pure practical laws given by reason a priori dictate "what ought to be done". It is also important to note that practical reason cannot actually contradict theoretical reason. Also, theoretical reason says nothing about the existence of God and immortality while this can be revealed by practical reason. 21. How is freedom possible, according to Kant? We assume we are free so that we may think of ourselves as subject to moral laws. The Idea of freedom, Kant states, is not only demanded by a sense of duty, but is also compatible with the law of causality. Man as a phenomenal being is causally determined, but as a noumenal being he is free. He cannot know what his freedom is, but he knows that he is free. Freedom is possible by choosing not to do things that are immoral. Moral worth, in this sense, creates freedom. 22. What types of freedom does Kant recognize? Can we cognize freedom? How? Kant recognizes two types of freedom: transcendental/rational freedom, and practical/civil freedom. Transcendental or rational freedom is freedom of the will, whereas practical freedom relates to the empirical conditions that allow one to enact the will. Those conditions are often, though not exclusively, determined or at least shaped by the parameters the state sets to individual action. We can cognize freedom by means of noumena. Kant argues that the very idea of morality, the limiting of yourself from engaging in certain behaviors because they are immoral, is the highest expression of the concept of freedom. 23. How is the categorical imperative possible? Can we cognize the categorical imperative? A categorical imperative is an unconditional obligation; that is, it has the force of an obligation regardless of our will or desires. Unlike the hypothetical imperative, which involves cognizing (“if lying makes me feel bad, I should not lie), the categorical imperative involves obligatory duty. 24. Can we explain how freedom is possible, according to Kant? What are noumena and phenomena? We cannot explain how freedom is possible – only that we are free as a noumenal being. We could not prove freedom to be something actual in ourselves and in human nature. By Kants account, when we employ a concept of some type to describe or categorize noumena (the objects of inquiry, investigation or analysis of the workings of the world), we are in fact merely employing a way of describing or categorizing phenomena (the observable manifestations of those objects of inquiry, investigation or analysis). The intelligible, or noumenal, world is the world as it is in itself. This is opposed by the sensible, or phenomenal world, the world as it appears to us. 25. What is compatible with freedom, according to Kant? According to Kant, freedom and determinism are not compatible, although noumenal freedom is compatible with phenomenal determinism. If determinism is true, this means that our current actions follow from the past physical state of the universe. However, since we have no control over the past of the universe, if our actions follow from that, we have no control over them either. Ones supposed freedom, even if ones present state depended only on ones past state and not the past state of the universe at large, would be no more than the "freedom" of a mechanical clock which is free to follow its mechanism. Kants solution to this is that freedom is to be found in the noumenal world. Every bit of our life is caused by its past, but our self in the noumenal world causes the whole timeline to be as it is. Although the future follows from the past, we have control, noumenally speaking, over the past, and so we can have control over the future. 26. Does the Kantian freedom indicate that we are free to choose everything without limitations? What restrictions does the Kantian freedom possess? Kantian freedom does not indicate that we are free to choose everything without limitations. Non-moral action is not truly free, for ones behavior is determined by the contingent fact of what desires you happen to have. Moral action is the only truly free action. 27. Point out differences between deontology and consequential ethics. Deontology is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves. Consequential ethics involves contemplating the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions. 28. Name differences between the categorical and hypothetical imperative. Kant defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative would compel action in a given circumstance: If I wish to satisfy my thirst, then I must drink something. A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. While the categorical imperative is done in an obligatory fashion to fulfill duty, the hypothetical imperative is done by thought and choice in order to fulfill desire. 29. Give at least two formulations of the categorical imperative by Kant. -First formulation: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” -Second formulation: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.” -Third formulation: “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.” 30. How does Kant define freedom? Freedom is morality. The free person and the moral person are one and the same. The free person acts on a law, and not randomly, but not an externally given law, for that would be a form of slavery. Only the categorical imperative is found suitable. Conversely, the moral person is following the practical law and is not bound by contingent desires, and so is autonomous. 31. What does constitute the moral worth for Kant? Moral worth appears to require not only that ones actions be motivated by duty, but also that no other motives, even love or friendship, cooperate. What is crucial in actions that express a good will is that the motivational structure of the agent be arranged so as to give considerations of duty priority over all other interests. 32. Why is a good will always good? What does “volition” mean for Kant? A good will is always good because good is what it is. It does not depend on anything else to be good. Actions depend on a good will to be good, and can be bad absent a good will. Volition means will. 33. What is the Kingdom of Ends? Who belongs to the Kingdom of Ends? The kingdom of ends is a hypothetical state of man derived from the categorical imperative. Rational beings are defined as beings who are capable of moral deliberation; they can choose to act by maxims that have universality. It is from this point of view that they must judge themselves and their actions. This conception of the categorical imperative would lead to another - the kingdom of ends. By the phrase kingdom, he means the "union of different rational beings in a system by common laws." Since it is through laws that consequences are evaluated based on their universal validity, he states that we can conceive of a systematic whole that includes both the rational beings as ends in themselves, rather than simply means to other ends, and the unique ends which these rational beings may aspire to. This systematic whole is the kingdom of ends. People can only belong to the kingdom of ends when they give universal laws unto it, and are subject to those same laws, and all laws within. Such rational beings must regard themselves simultaneously as sovereign, when making laws, and as subject, when obeying them. Morality exists in the action of all universal law which can make the kingdom of ends possible. This universal law must be first capable of being universalized completely, and being given its power from a rational beings own will - not exercising rule over it. 34. What is maxim? What is the universal law? A maxim is what the agent believes is his reason to act. Maxims should be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature. Kant’s formula for the universal law is "Act only on a maxim that you can will to be a universal law." Read More