Mill -Utilitarianism

Kant Review

• Ancient Greek Philosophy divided into 3 branches:

• Natural science
• Ethics
• Logic

• Only improvement needed is supplying principle on which it is based.

• Would let us be sure that the classification does cover all ground
• Enable us to define the necessary subdivisions

• Kant calls the trio “physic, ethic, and logic”.

• Our “physics” is too narrow for physic
• Natural science is preferred here

• Two kinds of rational knowledge:

• Material knowledge

• Concerns some object

• Formal knowledge

• Pays no attention to differences between objects
• Concerned only with the form of understanding and of reason, and with the universal rules of thinking

• Formal philo is called logic
• Material philo

• Having to do with definite objects and the laws that govern them
• Divided into 2 parts (depending on whether the laws in question are):

• Laws of nature (theory of n)

• Knowledge of this is called natural science

• Laws of freedom (theory of m)

• Knowledge of this is called ethics

• The two are called “theory of nature” and “theory of morals”.

• Logic cannot have anything empirical about it

• Can’t have a part in which universal and necessary laws of thinking are derived from experience.

• If it did, it wouldn’t be logic.
• Logic:

•  a set of rules for the understanding or for reason
• Rules that are valid for all thinking and must be rigorously proved.

• Natural and moral branches of knowledge CAN have an empirical part.

• They must, ‘cause each must discover the laws for its domain
• Natural branches:

• Laws of nature considered as something known through experiences

• *laws laws according to which everything DOES happen

• Moral branches:

• Laws of the human will so far as it is affected by nature.

• *laws according to which everything OUGHT TO happen.

• The two are very diff. (See *)
• They allow for conditions under which what ought to happen doesn’t happen.

• Empirical philo is philo based on exp
• Pure philo is philo that presents its doctrines solely on the basis of a priori prinicples
• Push philo can be divided into 2

• When it is entirely formal – LOGIC
• When it is confined to definite objects of the understanding – METAPHYSICS

• Idea of two-fold metaphysic

• Metaphysic of nature
• Metaphysic of morals

• Physics has

• Empirical part
• Rational part

• Ethics, likewise has

• Empirical part (called “practical anthropology”
• Rational part (called “morals”)

• To separate empirical from rational, we need

• A metaphysic of nature before real (empirical) natural science, and
• A metaphysic of morals before practical anthropology

SPARKNOTES SWAG

Preface

• Ancient greek philosophy is divided into 3 fields:

• Logic
• Physics (Natural philosophy)
• Ethics (Moral Philosphy)

• Logic:

• Study of pure thought
• Independent of any objects

• Physics:

• Study of how things happen in the world of material objects

• Ethics:

• Study of how things ought to happen in the world of human beings.

• Philosophy can be divided by:

• What is pure
• What is empirical

• Pure philosophy:

• Deals with a priori concepts

• Concepts that occur to us independent of any experience or perception.

• Empirical philosophy:

• Deals with objects we experience in the world around us.

• Logic is pure philosophy

• It relates to the formal procedures of thinking.

• METAPHYSICS

• Pure philosophy
• Because it applies to our efforts to understand the world.

• Physics AND ethics have both empirical and metaphysical branches.
• Task of this book is

• to develop a “pure” moral philosophy.
• A metaphysics of morals that relies on the a priori concepts of reason

• Not on empirical observations.

• That such philo is possible

• Apparent from the fact that moral obligations not just binding to particular people in particular circumstances, but for all rational beings in all places at all times.

• People must apply moral laws to many diff situations and circumstances.
• Developing a clear understanding of moral principles can help people keep track of their moral obligations.
• A clear understanding of morals can also help people to ensure that their motivations are pure.
• Actions are not truly moral if:

• They only appear to conform to moral law but lack moral motivation.

• Goal of this book:

• Establish the “supreme principle of morality”.

Chapter 1

• The one thing that is unambiguously good:

• Good will

• Qualities of character (wit, int, courage, etc) or qualities of good fortunes (wealth, status, good health) may be used for good or bad purposes.
• Good will is intrinsically good.

• Even if its efforts fail to bring about positive results

• Highest purpose of each indiv is presumably self-preservation and the attainment of happiness.

• Reason does not appear to be as well suited as instinct for these purposes
• People with refined capacity for reason are often less happy than the masses.

• As a result, refined people envy the masses.
• Common people view reason with contempt.

• Reason serves purposes that are higher than individual survival and private happiness.

• Its function is to bring about a will that is good in itself

• As opposed to good for some particular purpose (like the attainment of happiness)

• Duties:

• The specific obligation of a good will.
• 3 general propositions:

• 1. Actions are genuinely good when done for the sake of duty alone.

• People may act in conformity with duty out of some interest or compulsion other than duty.
• Grocer example (give fair price for cust, but also to keep up with comp.)
• All people have a duty to help others in distress, yet many help outside a sense of duty (‘cause it gives personal pleasure to spread happiness)
• A genuine example: Someone who feels no inclination to help, but does it because they recognize it as their duty.

• 2. Actions are judged not according to the purpose they were meant to bring about, but rather by the “MAXIM” or PRINCIPLE that served as their motivation.

• Principle:

• When someone does an action with no other motivation than a sense of duty, because they have recognized a moral principle that is valid.
• A priori

• By contrast, if they do an action in order to bring about a particular result, then they have a motivation beyond duty.

• 3. Duties should be done out of REVERENCE for THE LAW.

• Any organism can act out of instinct. Chance events can bring about positive results.
• But only a rational being can recognize a general moral law and act out of respect for it.
• The REVERENCE for law that such a being exhibits is not an emotional feeling of respect for the greatness of the law.

• Rather, it is the moral motivation of a person who recognizes that the law is an imperative reason.
• The law transcends all other concerns and interests.

• Moral law must be applicable in all situations.

• The law of morality is that we should act in such a way that we could want our MAXIM (motivating principle) of our action to become a universal law.
• Giving a false promise violates moral law.

• Some might do it to avoid difficulties.
• Some might be honest to avoid further problems.
• Both cases, the motivating consideration is a fear of consequences.

• Not pure respect for duty.

• Applying the moral law shows that lying can never be a universal law.

• If everyone made false promises, there would be no such thing as a promise.

• Most people are not aware of the moral law in any conscious sense

• Yet even untrained minds show a remarkable ability to abide by it in practice.
• People’s intuitive sense for theoretical matters is generally poor.

• By contrast, their intuitions in the field of practical reason (their intuitions about morality) are generally correct.

• People recognize that moral concerns should not include physical (sensuous) motivations.

• A philosophical understanding of morals is important

• Because untrained minds may be deceived and distracted by non-moral needs, concerns, and desires.

Chapter 2 – Part 1

• Actions are not truly moral if they are performed in conformity with duty but not for the sake of duty alone.
• Almost impossible to find examples of actions performed exclusively out of a sense of duty.
• Nearly every action we see can be attributed to some motive other than pure duty.
• However, rational beings may recognize that reason imposes clear moral demands.
• We should recognize that it would be impossible for us to derive universal moral laws from specific events and experiences

• Since all events are contingent upon specific circumstances, none of our exp can be a source of moral principles that apply in all cases and all circumstances.

• Even God is not based on experience.

• But rather on our a priori idea of moral perfection.

• Developing an understanding of a priori moral concepts would help reinforce our moral sense against distractions of competing interests and motivations.
• Rational beings may align their WILL

• either with objective laws of reason and morality
• or subjective needs and interests.

• Imperatives:

• The demands of reason.

• HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES:

• Command that a particular action is necessary as a means to some purpose

• Such as the attainment of personal happiness.

• CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES

• Command that some action is necessary in and of itself.

• Hypo Imps are regular and obvious occurrences.

• Anytime someone settles upon some purpose or objective, reason may make clear to them what course of action to take.
• This is complicated in the case of indeterminate objectives (like happiness)

• Because it’s hard to tell what you have to do to achieve it.

• Nevertheless, we have no prob understanding that people act how they do because of a hypothetical imperative.

• We cannot find evidence for categorical imperatives in the decisions and actions we observe.

• People may appear to act in a certain way because of a pure demand for reason, but no way to know for sure.

• Cannot tell if their motive is purely of categorical imperative.

• Categorical imperatives must therefore be derived

• A priori

• The only possible categorical imperative is that ACTIONS MUST CONFORM TO A REQUIREMENT OF UNIVERSAL VALIDITY.
• Categorical imperative must be formulated as such:

• Act only in such a way that you could want the MAXIM (motivating principle) of your action to become a universal law.
• Act as if your action would establish its maxim as a universal law of nature.

• 4 examples how common notions of duty conform to the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:

• 1. People don’t commit suicide.

• Clearly not a law of nature for people to kill themselves
• If everyone died, nature would cease to exist.

• 2. People who borrow money intend to pay it back.

• If nobody paid, nobody would lend.

• 3. People have a duty to cultivate their talents

• If everyone was idle, nobody would benefit from human capacities.

• 4. People have a duty to assist others in need

• If nobody helped, then nobody could find help in times of need.

• In each of these cases in all cases where people neglect their duties, individuals are involved in a contradiction:

• They accept the objective validity of the law, and yet they want an exception to be made for them.

Chapter 2 – Part 2

• Duties must be based on a categorical rather than hypothetical imperative

• And have established the content of the one and only categorical imperative

• Yet to establish conclusively that the categorical imperative is a binding law for any rational being possessing a free will.
• If there is some necessary law that compels rational beings to follow the CI, that law must be based on the concept of the WILL of a rational being.
• The WILL:

• The faculty that enables rational beings to choose what course of action to follow.

• Rational beings may pursue certain ENDS using appropriate MEANS.
• Ends that are based on physical needs or wants will ALWAYS provide merely  HYPOYHETICAL IMPERATIVES.
• The Categorical Imperative, however, may be based only on something that is an “end in itself”

• An end that is a means only to itself and not some other need, desire, or purpose.

• Rational beings are ends in themselves.
• In pursuing objectives, rational must always view themselves not only as means to some purpose

• But also as ends in themselves.

• They must also recognize that other rational beings are ends in themselves as well.
• Categorical imperative in terms of the will of a rational being:

• ACT IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU ALWAYS TREAT OTHER PEOPLE NOT MERELY AS MEANTS TO SOME END, BUT ALSO AS ENDS IN THEMSELVES

• 4 earlier examples work with this law.

• 1. Suicide, people treat their own life as a means for escaping a situation.
• 2. False promise, they treat people as a means to their own financial gain.
• 3. A view of humanity as an end in itself requires use to pursue the maximum fulfillment of humanity’s potential

• Which means we must cultivate our talents.

• 4. A view of humanity as an end requires us to work towards maximum happiness for humanity

• Which means that we must take care of the welfare of others.

• The principle that every rational being is an end in itself is UNIVERSAL and applies to ALL RATIONAL BEINGS.

• It comes from reason, not from experience.

• Will of a rational being must be thought of as the maker of universal law

• Since rational beings are ends in themselves, and not meant to some other end.

• Otherwise their actions would be governed by some interest and they would function as mere means to some purpose.
• When rational beings will for something for the sake of duty alone, they must renounce all interests and motivations other than duty.

• Thus their obedience to the law cannot be based on any specific interest.