ESPELITA, KIMBERLY M.

1PS2

1. How is "good will"related to "duty" in Kantian ethics? (10 points)

Action by Kant's 'good will' implies acting by a sense of moral responsibility or duty. That is, it
does not because of its human existence (its implications) a specific action, but because it acknowledges,
with the logic, that it is inherently right to do, and it sees itself thus as possessing the collective duty or
duty to do it. Kant answered, since it was the principle understood by reason that controlled our
motivation rather than the want for any expected consequences or emotional sensation that may make us
act in this way. Kant replied. The "will" is defined as the reason for our activities. Often we obviously
have certain wishes or feelings to inspire us. I may act as I do, either by having a sense of friendship with
a person or by wishing to have a certain result. I can also be driven by certain fear, envy or remorse
feelings etc. When I do so, I am motivated by a want for a certain goal; I am called to be "inclination" in
the Kant's terminology.

2. Show the similarities and differences of Kant's "Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives
through a Venn diagram (10 points)
ESPELITA, KIMBERLY M.
1PS2

3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Kantian ethics? (10 points)

STRENGTHS

 Not consequentiality – Kant realized a bad action can have good consequences.

 Universal – Provides moral laws that hold universally, regardless of culture.

 Clear – Kant’s theory is argued as simple. “Would you like it if someone did that to you?” “No?”
“Then don’t do it to someone else”

 Autonomy – Kant has the greatest respect for human dignity and autonomy.

 Rational – Kant is not swayed by emotion. His theory does not allow favouritism. It is a purely
rational theory.

 Human Rights – Provides a basis for Human Rights.

 Equality and Justice – Provides a basis for modern conceptions of equality and justice.

 International Law – Provides a basis for a lot of British and international Law.

 Objective – Objective standards, rather than subjective in situations.

 Duty – Bad options can come out of acting through love/compassion. Acting out of duty is
always right.

 Reliable – A system of rules works, and everyone knows there obligations.

 Authority – Kant’s rules are logical and reasonable – as if everyone broke promises, they would
no longer mean anything.

 Ends in themselves – Kant respects human life as ends rather than means, however this is
contested by modern medical ethics.

WEAKNESS

 Consequences – Sometimes consequences can be so severe that rule breaking may be necessary.

 Inflexible – It should be acceptable to break an unhelpful rule if the situation warrants it.

 Lack of motivation – Realizing that something is irrational doesn’t give any motivation to do the
right thing.

 Conflicting duty – Looking after your mother vs. looking after your father. Which one do I
follow?

 Absolute Duty – Ross argues that we have an absolute duty – sometimes we have a duty to break
a promise.
ESPELITA, KIMBERLY M.
1PS2

 Moral Law – Some philosophers question the existence of the moral law. Why should we
believe that there is objective morality?

 Anthropocentric – Kant sees non-human animals as having no intrinsic value.

 Too Vague – It is not clear how broad our application of the CI should be. E.g. If my council
wants to collect rubbish every 2 weeks. But I believe that rationally that is too long. Is that
really morally wrong?

 Difficulty forming maxims – If the SS asked if you are hiding Jews. Which maxim do you
follow? ‘Do not lie’ or ‘Do not expose others to violence’?

 A priori – Some slander the a priori approach. Isn’t experience better, in situations such as
medical ethics.

 Unrealistic – Just because we follow this route doesn’t mean everyone will too. For example by
being pacifist I would leave myself open to attack from a non-Kantian.

 Unforgiving – Kant believed in retributive justice ‘an eye for an eye’. Whereas someone like
Bentham believed it should be rehabilitative – make things better.

 Every situation is unique – Universal rules aren’t much use in a world where every situation is
different. If no situations are the same, morality should be relativist not absolutist.

Reference:

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF KANT’S THEORY, Unkantrolable, Unkantrolable, 2, Nov.

2016, unkantrolablerpe.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-kants-theory/