Ethic 1: Emmanuel Kant's formalism

[jaimelopez]

He provides a foundation of the moral norm, which is in itself; Thus, its justification no longer depends on extrahuman or supernatural elements. what’s wrong with his theory?

 

[wmw]

From: drtomoconnor.com/3300/3300lect01a.htm

From a deontological point of view, something is moral not because of its consequences, but is moral because the motive or intent is “good.” The clearest example of a deontological ethical system is FORMALISM, developed by the famous philosopher-of-philosophers, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant’s approach to ethics begins with an analysis of “ulterior motives.” Something could look good, and really be bad; and vice-versa, something could look bad, and really be good. Kant then proceeds to analyze the acts of so-called “Good Samaritans” to see why they do good things for complete strangers. What matters is whether or not the Good Samaritan is truly, or formally, doing the good thing out of the kindness of their heart – or whether they expect payment, glory, or the return of a favor. Only if something springs from a desire to do good with no expectation of reward or benefit, can we truly say the “goodness” of an ethic has been achieved. The question then becomes: “Under what circumstances will people sincerely do good with no expectation of benefit?” Kant says the answer is when people are “doing their duty” and the concept of DUTY becomes an important part of ethical formalism, which consists of three components:

1. Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
2. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, including yourself and others, as an end in itself, and never as a means to an end.
3. Act as if you were a lawmaking member of a kingdom of ends.

Please note the absolute character of these principles.  There is no room for flexibility, no wiggle room.  Together, they form what is known as the categorical imperative, but there are many smaller categorical imperatives in life.  A categorical imperative is something that "commands" action without reference to any purpose or consequence.  If you say to yourself that "I must attend college because a degree will help me in life," then you are still thinking in terms of consequences, and that statement is NOT a categorical imperative.  If you say to yourself that "I must attend college because that is a good thing to do in itself," then you are experiencing a categorical imperative, and doing a "good" and "right" thing.  The leading criticism of Kant's ethical formalism is that it doesn't tell you what to do in cases where there is a clear-cut "conflict of duties."  When we get to the topic of punishment later on, you'll find that deontological systems provide the underpinning for the philosophy of punishment known as RETRIBUTION.

First, it’s rather a self-centered theory. It matters not what happens, but only on my intent to do good.

Second, good can come from a mix of things that you do because you think is good and receive a benefit from. This theory is too ridged to allow for that or the above mentioned criticism of a conflict of duties.

A system is only worth while if it works in difficult, ‘gray’,situations the very definition of the system requires a very black and white analysis; therefore, is almost completely useless in gray situations unless your willing to paint all grays as black.