1450497

University of Birmingham
School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion

Essay/assignment cover sheet 2014-2015

To be included as the 1st page of all assignments submitted for
assessment
Module Title
LC Ethics: How Should we live
Level

Student ID (SRN)

1450497

Essay/assignmen
t title

Critically discuss ONE argument either for or against

Kantian approaches to ethics.

Actual
1416
Word Count
REMINDERS
1. A penalty of 5 marks will be imposed for each working day the
assignment is late, until a grade of 0% is reached.
2. There is NO leeway beyond the published word limit for the
assignment. An excess length penalty of 1 mark for every 100 words
over the limit will be applied. Please note: the word length includes all
references, but excludes the bibliography and this coversheet.
3. Do not give your name on the assignment; instead put your SRN on
the top right hand corner of each page.
4. Assignments should be submitted electronically via the module section
on Canvas by 23.59 on the published deadline (please note there are a
small number of modules that require submission of a hard copy
instead of electronic submission; the module tutor will advise if this is
required, for example in Logic).
5. By submitting this assignment you are declaring that it is not
plagiarized, but rather all your own work, and that all quotations from,
allusions to and paraphrasing of the work of others have been
appropriately cited and referenced.

Critically discuss ONE argument either for or against Kantian approaches to ethics.

Kantian approaches to ethics focus entirely on the act, rather than the consequences of the act. Due
to this the approach is said to be deontological, and as such one argument against Kantian
approaches to ethics is the paradox of deontology.

Kant's approach to ethics is deontological. Deontology is the view that certain actions, such as
murdering, stealing, or being charitable, have some characteristic about them that makes the action
inherently right or wrong. (R. Shafer-Landau, 2013, 480) Deontological ethics, like Kant's, differ
from teleological ethics, such as utilitarianism, in that the consequences of the action are irrelevant
when deciding the morality of the action. Instead it is the obedience to the rules, such as do not
murder, that decide the morality of an action. Kant's theory is seen as deontological for it's focus on
duty for duty's sake, and the categorical imperative.

Kant says that moral laws govern our and all rational beings actions and that by doing our duty, we
are acting in accordance with these moral laws. This is seen as deontological as the moral laws are
applied to everyone regardless of consequences. (R. Shafer-Landau, 2013, 480) For example if a
moral law was to be charitable, it would be expected that all rational beings from Bill Gates to
people significantly worse off should be charitable. Their circumstances are not acknowledged.
Kant also goes on to say that duty cannot be actions of which there is not an immediate inclination
towards doing. This is another aspect of Kant's deontology as all decisions and actions require an
immediate reaction to the action, rather than considering the consequences of the action. This is
best shown through three examples.

The first is that of an honest shopkeeper who chooses to continue trading fairly when faced with an
opportunity not too, e.g. serving a child too young to understand currency. Although the outcome is
the same as if the shopkeeper had an immediate reaction to the opportunity and chose to act fair for
fair's sake, due to the shopkeeper potentially calculating if it was in his interests to continue trading
fairly Kant's emphasis on the act can be shown. (R. Shafer-Laundau, 2013, 487)

The second example is that of a suicidal man. Kant says that preserving your own life is a duty, and
that everyone has an inclination to do this. If a suicidal man chooses to continue his life for some
reason e.g. his death would leave an orphan, then he is acting out of conformity to duty, rather than
duty alone which to Kant has no moral worth. If the man instead lives out his life out of duty then
the action (or lack of) has moral worth. (R. Shafer-Landau, 2013, 487) Again the end is the same,
but the motive to act according to the moral rules is what makes Kant's theory deontological.
A third example is of a wealthy man. Kant says that being beneficent is a duty. A wealthy man
chooses to share his wealth amongst other people and give to charity with no self interest or ulterior
motives, and the man finds inner satisfaction from his act. To Kant this action is morally worthless,
as it is not from duty. Kant says that if the man was instead overcome with grief and gained no
inner satisfaction from the act, and still chose to do it out of duty, then the act is morally

worthwhile. (R. Shafer-Landau, 2013, 487) Again although the end is the same, Kant's focus on the
act itself and it's accordance to moral laws is what makes his theory deontological, rather than
teleological.
Kant is also deontological in his theory when he approaches what he calls categorical imperatives.
To Kant, categorical imperatives are moral principles that apply to everyone, regardless of if they
don't improve the situation or further personal gain. He goes on to say that they are rationally
compelling and to ignore them is to do so at the cost of their own rationality. Kant says that
there is only one categorical imperative, although it has multiple versions, and that is the principle
of universalizability. The principle is:
Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law. (R. Shafer-Landau, 2013, 488)

The principle is effectively a system of justice, e.g. why should I be exempt from doing X if
everyone else isn't? Again this is deontological rule system, as it is not the consequences of
the act considered but whether or not the act is in line with moral rules that determines an
acts moral worth. Kant puts forward the idea of a world where false promises are made, e.g.
borrowing money with no intention to pay it back, and states that if this maxim was to be
universalised then no one would willingly lend money as they would know they wouldn't see
it again. To Kant this presents a contradiction and as such the maxim falls flat.

One criticism against Kantian approaches to ethics is the paradox of deontology. The paradox
goes that,
deontologists view acts as valuable enough to necessitate rules,
deontologists are morally obliged to maximise adherence to these rules,
Mary and Susan's rights are equally valuable, as are Johns, if violating John's rights results in
Susan's and Mary's rights not being violated, where they would be if we didn't violate John's,
should we not do whats necessary to protect Mary and Susan's rights? (Stanford, 2012)
The argument here is that quantity plays a vital role in ethical situations, because why else
would the trolley problem be an issue, and that at what point is there a 'breaking point' in
deontological ethics, and thus Kantian approaches to ethics, where the scales are tipped so far
as to allow rights to be broken or ignored in order to prevent further rights of the same kind
being broken. If there is a breaking point, then the laws do not necessitate being laws, and are
thus worthless.

One attempt at going against the paradox from Kantian approaches to ethics may be that
Kant's deontology is act centred, and that the quantity is irrelevant. The actual act of murder
goes against the rule, do not murder, and so to murder two times or three times does not
matter. Like it does not matter who is murdered, or why they are murdered, the amount of
murder is not wrong rather murder itself is wrong and the negative morality is just expanded.

Multiple murders do not make the act of murder more wrong, rather they just make the
murderer more morally wrong.

Furthermore, supporters of Kantian approaches to ethics may argue that the paradox itself is
too different to deontological thought to be applicable. The paradox is consequentialist in that
the result of the murder, the quantity, is what makes the action wrong rather than it breaking
any specific rules. It assumes that the murder of John would prevent future murders, where
this may not be the case. John may have people avenge his death etc. Again with this view the
paradox would be a weak criticism of Kantian approaches to ethics as it wouldn't itself hold up
to criticism.

Another response from supporters of Kantian approaches to ethics could be that Kant's use of
the principle of humanity and his insistence on not using others as a means to an end means
that the paradox, in most cases, can't work. For acts like murdering or lieing where the act can
be prevented by the act itself, e.g. murdering a potential mass murderer, white lies before they
get spun out further, the principle of humanity prevents people from being used as a means to
an end, in this case as a means to prevent further murdering or lieing. Clearly this rebuttal
only works in the cases such as this, where the act can be prevented by itself, and so the
response is limited.

Overall then, the argument that Kant's theory falls into the paradox of deontology is quite
strong. Kantian approaches to ethics are clearly a deontological ethical theory as shown
through the processes of doing duty and obeying the categorical imperative. The paradox
addresses well the problem in absolute ruling on laws, and points out the issue in an act being
morally worthwhile enough to rule upon, but not enough to break said rule. In saying this
however the paradox faces strong criticism when considered, with Kants principle of
humanity arguably nullifying the argument.

Bibliography
Alexander, Larry and Moore, Michael, "Deontological Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/ethics-deontological/>

R. Shafer Landau, (2013), Ethical Theory An Anthology 2 nd edition, John Wiley & Sons inc.