Chapter 6 Questions
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Montgomery College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
140
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by MateWildcat2938
1.
What is the significance of a “good will” in Kant’s ethics? (pp. 132–133) Do you
believe, as Kant does, that there are perfect (absolute) duties? Why or why not?
According to the textbook “
In Kant’s ethics, right actions have moral value only if they
are done with a “good will”—that is, a will to do your duty for duty’s sake.” (Vaughn,
2019, p.102) This is significant because Kant is saying that the moral worth of an action
depends on the intent and not the action itself. For Kant “good will” is the foundation of
morality, so even if you perform an action that has a bad outcome if you had performed it
with good will it is still considered morally right. Kant believed in absolute duties which
are moral obligations that fall under his categorial imperatives. Examples of
perfect/absolute duties are “not to break a promise, not to lie, and not to commit suicide”
(Vaughn, 2019, p.103). I disagree with Kants perfect duties because they lack flexibility
and have a lack of guidance when it comes to ethical gray areas. Additionally, Kants
whole framework fails to account for consequences, which in my opinion is a major
limitation as it does not account for situations where the outcome is morally important.
Plus, in my opinion Kants perfect duties could lead to moral absolutism and I do not
agree with absolutism. 2.
What is the difference between a hypothetical and a categorical imperative? What
is the difference between perfect and imperfect duties? (p. 133)
“
A hypothetical imperative tells us what we should do if we have certain desires”
(Vaughn, 2019, p.103). However, a categorial imperative “tells us that we should do
something in all situations regardless of our wants and needs” (Vaughn,2019, p.103).
Simply put hypothetical imperatives are based on individual preferences and specific
outcomes. On the other hand, categorial imperatives are unconditional and not dependent
on any personal desires or goals. “Perfect duties are those that absolutely must be
followed without fail; they have no exceptions” (Vaughn,2019, p.103). “Imperfect duties
are not always to be followed; they do have exceptions” (Vaughn,2019, p.103). Another
way of putting it is perfect duties are moral obligations that are clear, specific, and non-
negotiable no matter the situation. Imperfect duties though are moral obligations that are
more flexible and not tied to specific actions or situations.
3.
How does Kant distinguish between treating someone as a means and treating
someone merely as a means? (p. 135)
Treating someone as a means is saying that you are using others to achieve your goals
or a certain end. However, it also means you are doing so in a morally right way by
respecting them and doing so with their informed consent. Treating someone merely as
a means though is using someone to achieve your success without a care for the other.
You do not treat them with respect or do so with their informed consent. It means to
use a person as a tool which violates their moral worth. Other terms for treating
someone merely as a means are manipulation, deception, and exploitation. 4.
How can the absolutism of Kant’s theory lead to judgments that conflict with
moral common sense? How might the subjectivity of Kant’s theory lead to the
sanctioning of heinous acts? (pp. 136-137)
Kants theory is strict, unyielding moral principles that apply universally and without
exception. Some examples of how this can conflict with moral common sense is that it
leaves no room for flexibility that could appear in moral dilemmas. Kant also has no
consideration for the potential consequences and his theory can also be subjective. What
one person considers a universalizable maxim; another might not which can lead to
disputes about what is morally right. This subjectivity leads to sanctioning heinous acts
because Kants ethics relies on an individual to determine the maxims of an action.
However as explained earlier everyone is different, what one would consider universal
another would not. Another reason is because everyone has different interpretations
which can lead to the manipulation of the principles resulting in “heinous acts”.
5.
What is natural law theory? According to Aquinas, what is the good that human
nature aims at? (p. 139)
Natural law theory is a moral theory that says there is a moral code that applies to all
human beings and already exists within our nature. These principles are believed to
provide a foundation for a just and ethical society, as well as the basis for valid laws.
Thomas Aquinas proposes that human nature aims for the highest good which he referred
to as “the ultimate end.” Aquinas believed that every human is naturally designed to seek
this ultimate end. To Aquinas this ultimate end was divine happiness or a god that is the
source of all other good and is what every human desires. He held God above all else
other goods such as health and wealth were considered as secondary goods by him.
6.
According to natural law theory, how are moral principles objective and
universal respectively? (p. 140)
They are objective because natural law theory is grounded in human nature. The
principles are discovered through reason and reflection, so they are not dependent on
subjective opinions. Additionally natural law uses reason and rationality so individuals
can arrive at objective moral truths. Lastly natural law uses inherent morality, which is
viewed as objective because there are no personal, cultural, or societal factors. For
universal, natural law is applicable to all human beings regardless of culture. Also,
natural law argues that its moral principles are timeless and will not change based on
any historical or cultural contexts. Lastly for universal the whole point of the natural
law theory is that regardless of people’s differences there is a common human nature
that we all have. 7.
What is the doctrine of double effect? How can the absolutism of natural law
theory lead to moral judgments that conflict with moral common sense? (pp. 143-
140)
The doctrine of double effect as defined by the textbook is “The principle pertains to
situations in which an action has both good and bad effects” (Vaughn, 2019, p.110). This
doctrine helps provide a framework for assessing the morality of actions that produce
both intended and unintended effects. The absolutism of natural law theory can lead to
moral judgments that conflict with moral common sense because natural law's point is
that moral principles are universally applicable and unchanging. This may lead to
situations where its strictness does not accommodate real-life moral dilemmas.
Additionally, the theory's absolute stance on certain issues will not hold as societal norms
and values change. This leads to moral judgments that appear out of step with the moral
common sense of a dynamic and ever-changing world. 8.
In what way is Kant’s ethics independent of (not based on) religious belief? Is
natural law theory independent of religious belief? Why or why not? Which
moral theory— Kant’s or natural law—seems more plausible to you? Why?
Kants ethical philosophy is based on rational principles that he purposely made
applicable to everyone regardless of religious beliefs. Kant's ethics is grounded in the
idea of human autonomy and the concept of rational moral agents making moral
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
decisions based on reason and the "categorical imperative." By fixing his ethics in the
concept of rationality and universalizability, he made sure that his moral theory could
stand independently of any specific religious belief system. The idea of natural law
theory is that there exists objective, universal moral principles based on human nature
and reason. This theory says that through reason and rationality you can reach moral
truths which do not include any religious beliefs. Although many figures such as Thomas
Aquinas did incorporate religion into their beliefs. Aquinas’s religious foundation has
influenced the way natural law theory has been understood and applied in various
contexts. However not everyone agrees with him so it’s hard to say whether natural law
theory is independent of religious belief, it would differ depending on the person. For me
natural law seems more plausible as Kants theory has many weaknesses from inflexibility
to absolutism. I also agree with natural law theory that through reason and rationality you
can find moral truths, plus I do think regardless of our differences every human being has
at least one common belief. 9.
According to Kant, why is breaking a promise or lying immoral? Do you agree
with Kant’s reasoning? Why or why not? Would a Kantian and a natural law
theorist agree on whether having an abortion is moral? Why or why not?
Kant argues that breaking a promise or lying is immoral because it goes against the
fundamental principles of moral duty and the categorical imperative. Additionally, it
violates one's duty to keep promises, it cannot be consistently universalized without
contradiction, and it disrespects other individuals. I disagree with Kants reasoning
because yet again he does not consider specific scenarios nor the consequences that
keeping a promise of telling the truth could have. For example, if a kid asks me if I like
them, I will lie and say yes cause if I say no, they will start crying. I think both Kants and
natural law theory stance on abortion depends on the person because I can see arguments
for yes and no to abortion on both sides. For instance, natural law theorists could argue
that life begins with contraception so abortion is not okay, however they could also say
that the well-being of the women’s human life is more important than that of the fetus.
10. Is natural law theory more plausible than utilitarianism? Why or why not?
It depends on the person’s perspective and ethical priorities. Some individuals may find natural law theory more plausible due to its emphasis on universal principles, while others may prefer utilitarianism for its flexibility in addressing real-world consequences
and promoting happiness. It ultimately depends on the person, so no natural law theory is not more plausible than utilitarianism.