Kantian Ethics & Virtue Ethics (3)

Table of Contents
KANTIAN ETHICS: UNIVERSALIZABLE MAXIM + TREATING W PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY (PASS BOTH)........................................1
SCOPE OF THE MORAL COMMUNITY..................................................................................................................................................... 1
Rationale for this principle - action’s rightness depends on its maxim.......................................................................................1
Problems......................................................................................................................................................................................2
#2 PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY............................................................................................................................................................... 3
Problems......................................................................................................................................................................................3
DERIVED DUTIES – FROM PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY AND PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSALIZABILITY...............................................................................3
VIRTUE ETHICS: IF THE MORAL EXEMPLAR WOULD COMMIT THE ACT IN THE SAME SITUATION...............................................4
ALLOWS FOR MORAL COMPLEXITY.....................................................................................................................................................4
PROMOTES MORAL UNDERSTANDING................................................................................................................................................4
VIRTUE AND THE GOOD LIFE – HUMAN FLOURISHING/EUDAIMONIA............................................................................................................5
PROBLEMS....................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
VIRTUE ETHICS IN THE BUSINESS CONTEXT.............................................................................................................................. 6
VIRTUE ETHICS & MEDICAL ETHICS (DOCTORS)........................................................................................................................ 6
ETHICS OF CARE – A SUBSET.................................................................................................................................................... 7

Kantian Ethics: universalizable maxim + treating w principle of humanity (PASS BOTH)

 Work from first principles
 Kantian ethics should not be applied in a consequentialist manner  start with the MAXIM (the
reasoning) and test both
 Principle of humanity: u are testing the MAXIM also:
o Are u intending to do anything in a manner that violates someone’s dignity as a human
being or devalue someone? Are u intending to treat someone as a mere means to an end?
Under Kantian ethics, an act is morally permissible when it satisfies both of Kant’s categorical imperatives: (1) the
Principle of Universalizability; and (2) the Principle of Humanity.
Scope of the Moral Community
Under Kantian ethics, the moral community only consists of rational and autonomous beings.
● Infants are not in, severely mentally ill and retarded are out, so are all nonhuman animals and all plants and
ecosystems.
● HOWEVER, we cannot treat them in any way that we want as Kant claims that harming animals will
harden our hearts, and so make it likely that we will mistreat our fellow human beings. Since that really
would be immoral, we must not harm animals.
o COUNTER: most of us are easily able to make distinctions in our treatment of members of different
groups.
#1 Principle of Universalizability
Rule
First, the moral actor’s maxim must be universalizable: if everyone in the world acts on the same maxim, the
moral actor must still be able to achieve his goal.
 This ensures that the moral actor is acting consistently with others without making exceptions for oneself.
● A maxim is the principle of action you give yourself when you are about to do something. It consists of (1)
what you are about to do and (2) why you are about to do it.

Rationale for this principle - action’s rightness depends on its maxim

Kant thought that an action’s rightness depends on its maxim. For Kant, the morality of our actions has nothing to
do with results– it has everything to do with our intentions and reasons for action, those that are contained in the
principles we live by  CF UTILITARIANISM, action’s rightness depends on outcome
● This supports the thought that those who set out to do evil are acting immorally, even if, through sheer
chance, they manage to do good.
● Charitable, leaves some room for unforeseen circumstances: It also justifies the claim that people who
live by noble principles are acting morally, even when some unforeseen accident intervenes, and their
Kantian Ethics & Virtue Ethics (3)
action brings only bad results.
Morality of an action depends on its maxim rather than its results: it is crucial that the morality of our actions
depends entirely on what is within our control.
● We can control which maxims govern our action whereas the results of our actions are often out of our
hands– unfair to assign credit or blame for things we can’t control.  CF UTILITARIANISM

Example : I owe a huge sum of money to the casino. I can either get the money or get my knee caps broken. Hence,
I lie to a friend that I would pay him back the money I borrowed even though I have no intention to pay him back.
Maxim is: lie to a friend, in order to escape from being hurt.
● Application: Suppose everyone acts on this maxim– they lie whenever they think that it is necessary to
avoid some personal harm  In that situation, no one would trust the promises of others.
o Without that trust, people could not achieve the goals they are aiming for with their promises .
o In a world where no one believed the promises of others, I would never be able to get the money
from my friend and so the purpose of my promise would be defeated.
● Hence, my maxim is not universalizable– I am making an exception of myself and treating my friend
unfairly– my action is therefore immoral.
Example: insurance fraud  eventually raising insurance premiums

Problems
● Principle of universalizability fails as a general test for the morality of our actions
o Kant’s argument for the Irrationality of Immorality– It says that a maxim’s universalizability is a
guarantee of an action’s rightness.
▪ That is false. We can act on universalizable maxims and still do something immoral 
universalizability is not a guarantee for rightness
▪ Example: I will kill anyone who walks on my lawn so that I can have a neat lawn
● If everyone kills people who walk on their lawn
● Everyone will get neat lawns  UNIVERSALISABLE
● BUT KILLING IS CLEARLY NOT MORAL!!!
o HOWEVER, where the immoral action involves the abuse of a practice;
▪ the Logical Contradiction Interpretation says you cannot universalize because the
practice will cease to exist and the action will be inconceivable;
▪ the Teleological Contradiction Interpretation says you cannot universalize because the
practice will then not be best suited for what in a teleological system would be its natural
purpose; and  i.e. ur practice will cease to have its intended effect
● however, this imports consequentialist reasoning by allowing moral agents to
weigh duties based on outcomes.
▪ The Practical Contradiction Interpretation says you cannot universalize because if the
practice disappears it will of course no longer be efficacious in producing your purpose.
● Since u are proposing to use that action for that purpose at the same time you
propose to universalise the maxim, u will thwart ur own purpose
● A diverse society does not allow for an abstraction of a single aim to an aggregate of individuals
● Kant’s principle of universalizability does not provide practical guidance to resolve issues of conflicting
deontological duties. (deontology – morality based on a series of rules + conformity with moral norms
rather than consequences)
● For Kant, we can’t determine whether an action is right or wrong until we know its maxim.
o However, for any given action, there are countless maxims that might support it.
o There is only one way for Kant to absolutely ban a type of action– to be sure in advance that, of
all the hundreds or thousands of maxim that might support an action, none of them is
universalizable.
#2 Principle of Humanity
Rule : The moral actor must always treat a human, including himself, as an end with the dignity that one
deserves as a rational and autonomous being. If the moral actor treats an individual SOLELY as a mere means to
achieve one’s goals, the act is morally impermissible.
 Note: it is still moral to treat people as an ends in a sense, but must be done in a dignified way
o E.g. contracting a plumber to fix your leaky sink  treating him as a means to attain ur end goal of
fixing ur sink  but if u pay him what he deserves (or even tip), showing that u treat him with
dignity etc

Rationale : Derived from the premise that rational and autonomous beings are worthy of respect, and have infinite
Kantian Ethics & Virtue Ethics (3)
worth.

Problems
1. The notion of treating someone as end is vague, and so the principle is difficult to apply
2. The principle fails to give us good advice about how to determine what people deserve
3. The principle assumes that we are genuinely autonomous, but that assumption may be false
4. The principle assumes that the morality of our actions depends only on what we can autonomously control,
but the existence of moral luck calls this into question
● Moral luck – cases in which the morality of an action or decision depends on factors outside of
our control.
● If Kant is right, moral luck cannot exist (but we are fallible, cannot predict everything etc)
5. The principle cannot explain why those who lack rationality and autonomy are not deserving of respect.

Derived duties – from principle of humanity and principle of universalizability

(a) NO SUICIDE as this is contrary to self-love and the preservation of life. In addition, suicide amounts to
using one’s own person as a means only, contrary to the Principle of Humanity.
(b) NO FALSE PROMISES such as the borrowing of money with the knowledge that the borrower is unable to
pay. This would result in distrust amongst persons and the treatment of the lender as a means only.
(c) To DEVELOP ONE’S TALENT AND CAPACITIES. A rational person would necessarily will the
development of capacities. Moreover, developing one’s talents would advance the end of humanity as
an end in itself.
(d) TO SHOW BENEVOLENCE towards others. One would need love and sympathy in some cases and if the
maxim of not showing benevolence were made a universal law, a person may find himself or herself
without the help he or she requires. Further, benevolence advances the ends of other in a positive
manner. The principle of reciprocity also operates here.
a. As Kant put it, ‘the ends of a subject, who is an end in itself must as far as possible be also my ends,
if that representation is to have full effect in me’

VIRTUE ETHICS: if the moral exemplar would commit the act in the same situation
Under Virtue ethics, an act is morally right it that is what a virtuous person; a “moral exemplar” acting in
character, would do in any situation.
● A list of non-exhaustive moral rules that a moral exemplar would live by: do what is honest; act loyally;
display courage; deal justly with others; show wisdom; be temperate; avoid gluttony; refrain from infidelity;
don’t be timid, lazy, stingy, or careless; avoid acting in a manner that is greedy, deceitful, malicious unfair,
or short tempered; free yourself of prejudice; compassion; sympathy; kindness; be generous etc.
● When these rules conflict, or where there is disagreement about what counts as virtuous, “there is lots of
room for critical discussion”
(see the good life below)
ALLOWS FOR Moral complexity
● Virtue ethicists allow for moral complexity, rejecting the idea that there is any simple formulae for
determining how to act.
● Cf Kantian (universalizable maxim), cf utilitarianism (must be consequence-based), cf egoism (self interest
cannot be everything)

PROMOTES Moral Understanding

● Moral understanding is not just a matter of knowing a bunch of moral facts.
● Moral understanding is a species of practical wisdom
o We need experience, emotional maturity, and a great deal of reflection and training in order to
acquire moral wisdom
● 3 crucial ways EMOTIONS play in moral understanding
o #1 emotions help us see what's morally relevant by tipping us off to what matters in a given
situation
o #2 emotions can also help to tell us what's right & wrong
o #3 emotions also help motivate us to do the right thing
● Moral understanding requires a combination of intellectual and emotional maturity

The Nature of Virtues – IT’S A character trait

● A virtue is a character trait (not a mere habit). Virtuous person has a distinctive set of perceptions,
Kantian Ethics & Virtue Ethics (3)
thoughts, and motives.
o Habits don’t define a person; character traits do. Some people are habitually loyal or generous. Yet
they may lack virtue, because they don’t understand why it Is appropriate to act this way.
o While habits are defined as certain patterns of behaviour, virtues require much more.
● Virtuous people are defined not just by their deeds, but also by their inner life.
o They see, believe, and feel things differently from vicious people. They see what’s important, know
what is right and why it is right, and want to do things because they are right.

Virtue and the Good Life – human flourishing/eudaimonia

● Aristotle thought it obvious that all of us seek happiness / flourishing (“eudaimonia”)
o Aristotle thought that the good life is an active one filled with wise choices and worthy pursuits.
● Virtue is necessary (but not sufficient) for the good life , and a life of eudaimonia is the good life, an
excellent life for the person living it, active and filled with wise choices and worthy pursuits (in contrast to a
hedonistic lifestyle).
o Having virtuous traits will not guarantee a good life. But virtues are those excellences of character
that contribute to one’s well-being. Without them, one is leading the life of an animal – or worse
● The ultimate good
o (1) is not something that is only instrumentally valuable;
o (2) is self-sufficient;
o (3) involves something distinctive about us, something that is uniquely human. Therefore, pleasure,
wealth, power, and fame are not what life is all about
Problems
● The theory alone does not offer direct, normative principles on human conduct. Due to its focus on
character and human attributes, virtue ethics does not in itself provide straightforward rules or principles for
determining right actions in a particular situation.
o Moreover, the virtues are dependent on societal views and may vary with the times.
● Virtue ethics provides very little instruction in deciding what to do when virtues conflict with one another.
Once you appreciate which virtues and vices are involved in the situation, it is up to you to sort out how to
balance them against one another. (e.g. what if duty to act loyally to gangster boss)
o HOWEVER, virtue ethicists deny that ethics is meant to provide us with a precise rule or
mechanical decision procedure that can crank out the right answer for each morally complex case.
● Question of how do you go about looking for that virtuous person remains unanswered.

Virtue Ethics in the BUSINESS Context

Robert Solomon regarded the model of business based on competition and profit motive as a ‘myth’ and probably
over-exaggerated. He proposed that profits should be seen as a means to ‘building a better business, and serving
society better’ rather than as an end in itself. He referred to six parameters that define virtues in business ethics,
namely:
● Community – the corporate is itself a citizen and member of a larger community
● Excellence – emphasis on merit (as opposed to mediocrity) in the marketplace
● Membership – focus on the individual within the organisation and corporate role morality
● Integrity – notion of integrity as wholeness which involves openness, affection and flexibility, a sense of the
social context as well as moral courage
● Judgement – good judgement in making the best decision available during ethical dilemmas
● Holism – notion of stakeholder (rather than stockholder) and the concept of social responsibility
(link to csr topic?)
Virtue Ethics & MEDICAL Ethics (DOCTORS)
The cardinal virtues of prudence, fortitude and temperance can complement conventional medical ethics and
make their execution more effective by equipping doctors with the qualities that enable them to realise the good
they want to do.
● Prudence alludes to the practical wisdom medical professionals possess by virtue of their expertise and
experience to decide on the best treatment plan. Improving the way complaints against doctors are dealt
with
● Fortitude is needed to persevere in the face of resistance from the patient so that the doctor will continue
to act in the patient’s interest.
● Temperance affords self-control as varied emotions and motivations can feature in the doctor-patient
relationship.
Ultimately, by applying virtues, doctors can better build trust which enhances the doctor-patient relationship
Kantian Ethics & Virtue Ethics (3)
to secure the final good of the patient.
● Most doctors already "do good” intuitively but virtue ethics makes the conventional medical ethical
principles more tangible and helps doctors better appreciate the qualities they need to practise good
medicine.
● There is value for doctors to be reminded to apply these virtues daily to refine their medical practice. These
virtues can be taught, but they are probably more effectively learnt through role modelling senior doctors
who embrace and embody these virtues in their day-to-day medical practice.
● By embracing virtue ethics, a virtuous circle of trust founded on medical competence and upholding
the patient’s best interest can help to defuse the cloud of mistrust and dispel the gloom of defensive
medicine.

Ethics of Care – a subset

An ethical theory based on virtues such as empathy, compassion, love and friendship and the needs and desires of
other people. The concept of self is based on the relationship between itself and other selves. It involves the ‘one-
caring’ and the ‘cared-for’. The individual person cannot exist in insolation from the others within the community.
● The ethics of care reminds us not to place undue emphasis on principles of impartiality and universality. (c/f
with Kantian ethics)