L05 p2 wrap up in part 2 of this lesson we focused on

This preview shows page 28 - 30 out of 31 pages.

L05-P2 Wrap-Up In Part 2 of this lesson, we focused on the Categorical Imperative, the moral requirement to respect the intrinsic value of persons, and the fundamental value of autonomy. Kant maintains that moral laws are imperatives to do, or to refrain from doing, something. He also holds that they are categorical. The normative force of these laws is absolute. This force does not depend on the presence of any particular desire within us; e.g., the desire to be happy or the desire to promote social well-being. Instead it depends on the capacity of our will to determine itself to action through a representation of an action as being required by reason.
It is this rational capacity for self-determination, or the autonomy of the will, that accounts for the intrinsic value of persons; i.e., their status as ends-in-themselves. That is what ultimately generates the moral duty to respect the autonomy of persons and to refrain from treating them as nothing more than means to our own ends. It also explains the capacity for persons to confer value on things, which do not have value in and of themselves, by identifying them as possible means in relation to their own self-determined ends. This highlights the most significant difference between Kant’s deontological ethics and the views of both Aristotle and Mill. Ethics, for Kant, is not a system of practical guidelines that we use for bringing about some end that is not of our making. Our rational capacities are not simply tools for bringing about the happiness that nature determines us to pursue. Nor are they valuable solely as means for calculating what the well-being of society as a whole requires. Our rational capacities are what confers on each of us the value of an end-in-itself. Ethics, for Kant, is a system of self-imposed constraints on the exercise of our rational capacities. It provides guidelines for the work of setting ends for ourselves and, then, working out how it is that we are going to pursue those ends. Kant’s focus on the autonomy of persons and his use of this view to account for the intrinsic moral value of actions holds some appeal for many people. At the same time, the question about how we determine in any given case what, specifically, is required in order to respect autonomy, the apparent rigidity of his view, and his commitment to autonomy as the only intrinsic moral value, give some cause for concern about the view. In Unit 03 of the course, we will explore some alternatives and begin to decide for ourselves whether we think any of those views is ultimately preferable to Kant’s and to the other theoretical approaches we have focused on thus far. Which of the following claims, if true, would refute Kant's theory? – People are not autonomous No view of morality that held that people didn’t often act immorally, or that nobody lacked a good will, or that lying wasn’t common could ever be considered a legitimate contender. None of these presents a problem for

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture