Video 20: Can Rules Define Morality?

• Immanuel Kant: moral goodness depends not on consequences (e.g., happiness)--which can vary from person to person, culture to culture, and thus cannot provide a universal moral foundation--or doing what is commanded by an outside power.  Rather, morality depends on doing one's duty

• Only a free will that imposes duties on itself ("autonomously") can be obligated morally; and only a good will can be good in itself (that is, act for no other end than to do good)
• A maxim is purely subjective; only an objective, universalizable law can be the basis for morality
• Categorical Imperative (CI): act only on that maxim that can be universalized; immoral behavior is based on non-universalizable maxims--that is, in claiming to an exception to a moral rule
• Alternate version of CI: treat everyone as valuable ends in themselves, subjects with their own ideas and will; this is the Enlightenment ideal of thinking of everyone as free and equal
• Objections to Kant

• Moral people often do not act only because it is their duty but because they are concerned with their own happiness and the happiness of others
• Just because the exact consequences of actions are unknown or are not in our complete control, that does not mean that we are not responsible for (and should consider) those consequences
• In moral dilemmas, moral rules often conflict; in such cases, Kantian ethics is of no help