HE References Aquinas, Tomas. Summa thelogie: ric! exsye eed | by ian Devo, Ont owas ie, 206 de Fhmnc, Josep. An Bia! Jngury Rome: Hse Ponti Uesia Crean, 120 wens, Sem, Denies wad ipves tx ome evivae Washing DC: Gastown User Pre | i, Pincha, Servis Sonres of Cristion Bthies Washington es Cathe Unies of Arr Pe, 08 Chapter III Deontological Ethics: Immanuel Kant Learning Outcomes [At the end of this chapter, you should be able to: 1. recognize the meaning of deontelogical ethics; 2. explain the categorical imperative: 2. appreciate and articulate the role of duty in crafting fn ethical lie; and. 4. apply the principle of the eatogorical impe ‘moral dilemme. Introduction Franz Kafka once gave voice to the solitude of man and his/her task to find his/her own way. Kafka wrote the story of *an imperial message” directly addressing the reader as the pathetic subject. The story started with the sending of ‘message from the farthest distance, A. dying king ordered his Herald to bring his whispered message. After confirming the accuracy of the message, the Herald was sent breaking down obstructing walls and going beyond the great ones of the empire a first. Eventually, however, he is slowed down by the huge crowd and the infinite distance that lie between him and the receiver of the message, The reader to whom the message is addressed in the end sits by the window dreaming of the message that may come soParr |: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS. ‘The reader is directly addressed by Kafka and invited to move out of dreaming and end his/hor pathetic passivity. Left on his/her own, he/she is tasked to find his/her own way ‘and not give in to dreams of fullness of knowledge that are aiven to him/her or the discovery of a path that is yet to be revealed. A professor once hypothetically presented such a situation by asking, “If easly morning tomorrow you wake up so sure that there is no God, what would you da?” ‘The German thinker Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) proposed a viable human solution to this quandary. His philosophy’ views man as autonomous and most of himself/ herself as not subject to external conditions, results, a mandates. If let to himself/herself, is it possible for the Jhuman person to be ethical? Immanuel Kant thinks so. ‘Bom 32 Apri 1724 toa velgious ond lower ridle-oss fariy, Immanuel Kant hod he ‘evento at the local Pte Friedrchstlleg of Korigaterg, East Prssia (now Kalingrad Fuso) Heiter nPhiosopny stared when he conthued hs stadies ot the University of Konatbera, From 1746-7755 Kont worked 18 0 tutor forthe rich orien of a cy unt he got er cppcinment ar nstuctorot ecu Uuniersty Hewasan affacoveteacnerandin {770 wox awarded fortes. Two things fl te mind with ever new and iereasing ‘dmieaton and awe.. the ember inthe etre ond the moral aw ‘thin These occupied the tutes of Kant tat he made ornare {through his opus wings: General Nora! Hitory and Theory of Heovers (1758). Groundwork ofthe Metaphysics af Moral (1785) Crna of Practica! Rearon (1788), Metophacs of Mora (1797) and Flaionwehin the Limits of Reason (1792/98) Hewornever arsed hough he eroyeda vbr ocife H ‘ded on 12 February 1204 with east words es tg (is oe. In fact, he was s0 confident in the ethical system that he ‘ame up with what he declares its systematic independence from religion and even asserted that itis religion that is in ced of his foundational ethies and not vie versa, Autonomous Reason, Goodwill, dnd Duty ‘Kant insists that every time we confront moral situations there are formally operative a priori principles that can be brought to the fore. Highlighting these « prior’ truths can better help the leasner of ethics sort through his/her task of living ethically. Kant's research on ethics has namod those as reason, goodwill, and duty. These are, for Kant, respectively, the foundation (reason), source (goodwill), and motivation (uty) of ethical living ‘The foundation of a sound ethies for Immanuel Kant ean only be the authority of human reason. The voiee of God is ot heard directly today while man is living inthis passing ‘world, Voices of ministers and priests who claim to speak for God are but other human beings who make use of their own reason in trying to understand what goes on around them. ‘This common human reason is also what they use as they ‘comprehend the revelation that is said to be the foundation ‘of theit particular religion. Given that they share the same humanity with everybody’ else including the students of ethics, what they say ought to pass through the norm of reason that is internal to the moral subject himself/herself. Otherwise, arbitrariness holds sway in their claim to authority and what ‘hey capriiously hold as binding or gratuitously free. ‘The person who acts in accordance to drawn-up Lists ‘of what one should do complies through the use of his/her reason that they are indeed an obligation for bis/ber. The reason, therefore, elects such and sveh as morally binding and othus acts in accordance with what he/she thinks is so. His/ Her reason, therefore, functions as the very effort to thiak ‘through moral principles and apply what he/she knows to get to the right thing to do. In fact, this internal authority of Jnuman reason is operative and takes precedence every time the human person confronts e particular marl situation. This Js human rationality that ig diseursive, i. humans reason by “talking to themselves,” according to ane ofthe Philosopher- readers of Kant named Hannah Arendt ‘What is ethical necessarily always implies the use of reason. Human aeceptance of external mandates also makes use of this same reason. Kant then tells ws that reason in iteelf can only be the sensible foundation of what is ethical for rman. Kant then bids his students sapere aude that is "dare to think for yourselves" Autonomous reason ventures to kuow ‘what is ethical not on the authority of what is external to the self but grounded on (reason) itself. The loudness of external authorities cannot bend the autonomy of reason that on its ‘own knows what should be done. What others say in tura is ‘only acouptable if is found to be reasonable by the use of ‘one's sutonomous reason. If roason is the foundation of what is ethical for Kant, in ‘uum is souree can only be goodwill. This simply means that ‘what is morally binding is rooted in reason as “doable for the Jhuman person.” ‘The moral authority for Kant is immanent in ‘man, that s, the origin of ethical obligation for man is his/her ‘own goodwill Instead of looking at the good as external to man, Kant locates the good in the very interiority of the self. The good that Is relevant to the porson who through his/her reason ‘knows what one ought to do, is that which hejshe can do and ‘know as good. This goodwill implies the achievabilty of what Js known through reason. One who claims what one says is a a (CHAPTER Ili DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS: IMMANUEL KANT ‘oral obligation ean do so by being free of impositions from ‘outside, Th is, he/she is of his/her own doing able to carry ‘out bis/her obligation. It can only oblige him/her insofar as Inj himself/herself through his/her own reason knows it as ‘an obligation, In the same way’ tha itis an obligation insofar that itis something that he/she on his/her own can manage todo. Kant calls “duty the obligation that follows what reason deems as the action which is most worthy of our humanity. This duty is founded on human reason, that is, it passes through the sorting out made by our autonomous ‘and discursive reason, Our duty is thet which the reason determines as our obligation. Inasmuch as duty is the doable ion for the human person, it is not a duty i impossible for man to do it. Duty, therefore, presupposes our ability for otherwise itis only a bother to the human person Duty, therefore, is a doable good for the human will. Duty, ‘while founded on human reason for determination, is at the very same time originating from the goodwill as a voluntary ‘ction that is doable for the human being. Duty or obligation is the motivation for reason and odwill of the human person. If one asks why he/she had to ‘do what he/she ought to do, the answer ean only be because it i his/her duty. Reason tells the human person to do the ‘obligation that is deable forthe goodwill again sinc it is her/ her duty: The good that is reachable for the will ofthe human person is, therefore, owned by him/her as a duty. This then ‘excludes egy other external or internal motivation for the human person for doing what she cught to do: whether he/ she likes itor nat; be it suceass oF failure; whether it comes ‘with applause or accusation; his/her reason and goodwill simply binds him/her to do what he/she ought to do because it is his/her duty. «PART |: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRADITIONS Obligation is Understood as “Man as an End in Himself/Herself,” Autonomous, and Universalizable Obligation for the human person is something one’s reason eleets and his/her goodwill owns simply as something she ought to do. Obligation is simply a must, a “categorical imperative” or a duty that is defined by reason as doable for man's volition and, therefore, should be carried out by the hhuman person. In this sense, *Man as an end in himself/ herself” means the obligation cannot be passed on to others. ‘That is, if confronted by a particular situation, the human [person in his/her intogrity as reason and goodwill ie obliged to do his/her duty as the agent of action. “The buck stops here,” that is, the human person is himself/herself the center of action and responsibility in & aiven ethical situation, Tis/Her obligation is his/hers and it e his/her participation in this particular ethical event. He/She {is autonomous in reasoning and willing the execution of his/ her defined duty. Jf one remembers, however, reason as earlier mentioned. Is always discursive in its execution. His/Her autonomous reason, being thinking that is talking with himself/herself, presupposes dialogue. Dialogue with the self approximates ‘8 reaching out beyond the confines and determinations (of oneself onlye The human person in reasoning out and ‘determining his/her personal duty isin this sense nonetheless tied up with other reasonable beings before whom he/ she is accountable, Is one's obligation as defined by one's autonomous reason acceptable to other reasonable beings who can stand in one's shoes? One's reason is also the presence of other reasonable beings one ought to strive to be in accord with. One's definition of duty or his/her obligation ‘ought to be universlizable in this sense, (CHAPTER Il: DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS: IMMANUEL KANT “Man as an end in herself" conjoined with this responsibility +0 reach for duty that is universalizable hecessarily demands that other human persons ought to hye treated not as instruments in the exzcution of what ‘one should to do but as fellow reasonable beings, ends in themselves. They are reasonable human beings too before whom the self stands accountable, Kantian Ethics and Religion Immanuel Kant fully established the independence of his ethies from religion via the recognition of reason as the Foundation, goodwill as the rource, and duty as the motivation ‘of what obliges the human person, In his essay “Religions within the Limits of Reason", Kant went as far as setting Up his ethical system as that which is definitive in the recognition of true religion, |A “religion is not true to itself” sccording to Kant, if it goes against what man “ought to do” as defined by his/her autonomous reason and goodwill that reaches for iversalizabilty. Only false religion or cul falls unreasonably to superstition and does away with duty as an obligation for his/her goodwill I is, therefore, such Kantian ethics that is foundational for religion and not vice versa Kant, however isnot against religion. For him the valve of religion rests om its reality as an openness to “what one ‘can hope for.” Religion for Kant is the very openness of ethics to the cosiplementary strength that is provided by hope. Unlike Aristotle, Kant does not define “happiness” as the motivation for his ethies of duty. What is ethical is indifferent to happiness for Kant and is purely motivated by duty itself. ‘One does the obligation to reach for happiness, that will be self-serving for Kant and self-interest here moves away from the purity of duty.PART |: THE ACADEMIC ETHICAL TRAGITIONS Happiness, however, is understood by the human reason ts reasonably related to ethies. “He/She who has lived justly boy doing his/her obligation dutifully is the most fitting for happiness.” This truth, the human reason knows and ‘even goes a far as protesting the reality of just men living miserably, “Happiness ought to be related to the ethical task of man,” reason asserts in protest. It Is dear, however, that happiness eannot be a motivation for the ethical obligation of men, according to Kant. He, therefore, suggests the dotermination of “happiness as gift” for the ethical man. That is, “he/she who has lived justly is ‘worthy of the git of happiness." Man cannot give this gift ‘to himself/herself and therefore in his/her striving to live ethically opens himself/herself in hope. Kantian ethics, ‘therefore, need not be hard-hearted in the pure preoccupation of duty as obligatory. The ethical person is open to happiness he/she cannot give to himself/herself. Hs/Her duty eam also be an expression of hope that “he/she can make himself/ herself worthy of happiness.” For Kant, the ethical human person is like someone who ‘woos in courtship the person one likes. He/She cannot oblige ‘the’other to give him/her a postive answer to his/her offering of love and devotion. He/She can only make himself/herself worthy of a “yes” Responding to his/her love is a ft he/she cam only roosive from the other. The answer cannot be forced in the same way that happiness is something one expects to collect after a lifelong striving of doing one's duty. Happiness isa gratuitous gift that one recognizes as within the realm of hope. Different religions for Kant express this balance between the task of doing the duty and the hope far what one ‘cannot give to oneself, Religion for Kant isthe reconcilstion of ethies and hope, the task of fulfilling one's duty and the sift of happiness that one cannot gain by one's efforts alone. Conclusion Kant's ethies provided for a ground for legislating norms of rational behavior for autonomous persons. His ethical system emerged at atime when Western civilization sought for a foundation for moral behavior that did not depend on {aith or tradition. Kant provided that and in effect gave the justification and possibility for reason being the sole ground for determining the good. ‘The next ethical theory will provide another possible basis for determining the good using reason. alone. Study Questions 1L Why ip autonomous reason the only acceptable Funston of et or Kant? 2. What isthe importance of the Kantian shift fom preoccupation withthe extoral good to sess the internal goodwill? 4 Hw dos doing ones moral duty become antnorous and atthe same time universaliaabe tn the Kantion Principe of "nan aban end in himsl terse? 4. Whot i the reasonable relationship between religion and ethics for Kant?) 5 Bapain ope a the tension between gift and tsk for Kantian phloopty. Exercise Read the newspapers for one wook and identify a moral issue where you can use the categorical imperative to discern the duty ofthe persons invelved. Report your moral Issue in class. aeReferences Kant, Immanuel, Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory of Bthies, Translated by ‘Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. Whitefish, NY: Kessinger, 2007. Loude, Robert. Kant’s Impure Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000 Reyes, Ramon, Ground end Norm of Morality. Manila ‘Ateneo Press, 1989 Sovater, Fernando, Apdstatas Razonables. Barcelons: Mandragora, 2007, Savater, Fernando, Btica per un Figo. Rema: Laterza, 2007, CHAPTER IV Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill Learning Outcome: At the end of this chapter, you should be able to: 1. articulate the meaning of a consequentialist ethics; 2. analyze the Greatest Happiness Principle; 3. examine the objections to Mill's position and his responses to each of thom: and 4. evaluate ethical decisions from the point of view of tltarianise, Introduction Human decisions always have consequences. Whenever one decides to do something, one's actions affect other people in ways beyond how one thought it would, Decisions continually affect the configuration and integrity of various forms of human relationships because in deciding to do something, for instance, one setually brings something new Into the world that has never existed before. Decisions bring forth new jdeas, objects, and relationships into play in the realm of action and thought. Because one decides ina certain way, one affects others and the world in a particular way, Aiferently from how one would have if one decided diffeenty In otter words, particular decisions ave particular consequences that correspond to how one's motives translated into aetion through a decison.