100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 2 - 3 out of 3 pages.
gives four examples of the application of this test: (1) making a lying promise, (2) committingsuicide, (3) neglecting one’s talent, and (4) refraining from helping others. Counterexample 1:Mandating Trivial Actions. Counterexample 2: Endorsing Cheating. Counterexample 3:Prohibiting Permissible Actions. Counterexample 4: Mandating GenocideThe Principle of EndsIn valuing anything, I endow it with value; it can have no value apart from someone’s valuing it.As a valued object, it has conditionalworth, which is derived from my valuation. We, as valuers,must conceive of ourselves as having unconditioned worth. We cannot think of our personhoodas a mere thing because then we would have to judge it to be without any value except thatgiven to it by the estimation of someone else. But then that person would be the source ofvalue, and there is no reason to suppose that one person should have unconditional worth andnot another who is relevantly similar. 1. Formulate the maxim (M). 2. Apply the ends test. (Doesthe maxim involve violating the dignity of rational beings?) 3. Apply the principle of the law ofnature universalization test. (Can the maxim be universalized?)Kant’s view of the dignity of rational beings. 3 problems: we should value clever people more,we shouldn’t care about animals, it doesn’t tell us what to do in situations where our two ormore moral duties conflict.The Principle of AutonomyThat is, we do not need an external authority—be it God, the state, our culture, or anyone else—to determine the nature of the moral law. heteronomy: The heteronomous person is onewhose actions are motivated by the authority of others. 85 percent of the subjects were foundto be completely “obedient to authority.”One of the problems that plague all formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative is that it yieldsunqualified absolutesRoss and Prima Facie DutiesThere are three components of Ross’s theory. The first of these is his notion of “moral intuition,”internal perceptions that both discover the correct moral principles and apply them correctly.The second component of his theory is that our intuitive duties constitute a plural set thatcannot be unified under a single overarching principle. As such, Ross echoes the intuitionism of
Pufendorf by presenting a list of several duties, specifically these seven: 1. Promise keeping 2.