Comments on: Episode 10: Kantian Ethics: What Should We Do?

By: rinky

rinky — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:33:31 +0000

I like that. To me, it means that any one account is never going to suffice – we need to embody all three, and use each one where it’s needed.
–R.

By: Ryan Usher

Ryan Usher — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:22:29 +0000

When I took my very first ethics class, there was a point when a student asked the grad. student who was teaching the class something along the lines of, “So, what are your general thoughts on these three differing viewpoints? Which should we choose?”

The grad. student paused for a moment and then said, rather jokingly, “Well the best consensus we’ve come to in the philosophy department is this: you elect utilitarians, you go into business with Kantians, and you date virtue ethicists.”

By: Moral Psychology vs. Normativity | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:54:47 +0000

[...] Kant thought not: the causal story is only relevant for him in figuring out how to teach people morality [...]

By: Michael Sandel on Kant's Morality (Like Plato?) | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:03:03 +0000

[...] by reference to the example Plato uses (referred to on the Plato episode, and more extensively on our Kant morality episode) about whether you lie to someone to prevent an act of brutality (the “Nazis at the door [...]

By: Mark Linsenmayer

Mark Linsenmayer — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:42:55 +0000

Thanks, Richard. I remain unconvinced, and think this is a real problem for Kant. So should voluntary slavery be OK for him? Clearly he thinks that’s the case if you sign up for the military… you have no right after that to renege on your promise and refuse to give up your life when ordered to do so. Selling your body might on Kantian grounds be disrespecting yourself. His formula just doesn’t provide clear guidance in these cases, I think.

By: Richard Austrum

Richard Austrum — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:04:30 +0000

I am dropping a line to give what I was taught that Kant was saying about treating people as a ‘means to an end’ vs. ‘an end in themselves’. In the prostitute example a key point would be the situation of the prostitute and of the ‘patron’. If the transaction was done consensually (i.e. the prostitute was pursuing this line of work without being coerced by drugs or other people this line of work) then both sides in the transaction would be using each other as a ‘means-to-an-end’ while recognizing that they are both still ‘ends-in-themselves’. I doubt Kant would have approved of prostitution but his theory would seem to support legalized uncoerced prostitution.

By: Paul Tillich on Religious Existentialism | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

Mon, 04 Jul 2011 03:59:41 +0000

[...] morality. We invent morality; it is an expression of us. This sounds much more like Nietzsche than Kant, and sure enough, the interviewers ask Tillich what keeps us in line if we’re not following [...]

By: MemeGene

MemeGene — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:55:25 +0000

@Wes, that is true, but then they’d be anti-Kantian in using you merely as a means to their end so the joke would be on them…

By: Wes Alwan

Wes Alwan — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:06:18 +0000

@MemeGene — thanks very much, glad you’re enjoying the podcast. And I’m not sure why saying nothing to the Nazis never occurred to me! (Of course, they have ways of making you speak).

By: Mark Linsenmayer

Mark Linsenmayer — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:47:19 +0000

Thanks, MG. I appreciate the detailed weigh-in. Re. The combo principle, it seems more util. than Kantian, as it still leaves a lot of room for using lots of people w/ a given act. I’ll check it out.

By: MemeGene

MemeGene — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 05:51:40 +0000

Hi guys! New listener to the podcast and a Kant fan.

I have a suggestion for making Kant’s First Formulation/Universalizability test more usable. He distinguishes between Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties, where the former means you MUST ALWAYS do/NEVER do and the latter that it is PERMISSIBLE/DESIRABLE but not required to do/not do. If your maxim fails in Step 3 (is your maxim conceivable in the world where your maxim is a law of nature?), then you have a Perfect Duty to NOT act by that maxim. If your maxim fails in Step 4 (could/would you will to act on your maxim in this hypothetical world?), then it is an Imperfect Duty to act, ie: you may do it or it would be nice for you to do it, but you aren’t bound by requirement.

Also, when I get into a snarl asking whether it’s okay to do a certain action, I invert the question and ask whether I have a duty to NOT do that action or I split it into parts and examine each separately. For example, on the question of what to do when you find a valuable item on the ground consists of two questions: 1) is it okay to take that item? 2) do I have a duty to return the item to the owner? (Working with my students, I came up with perfect duty to not take the item, and an imperfect duty to return the item to the owner.)

(Reference: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#ForUniLawNat)

Regarding lying to the Nazis, I read someplace that at some point Kant revisited the question and suggested that while it’s not okay to lie to the Nazis, you aren’t obligated to say anything. Thus the two questions are: 1) is it okay to lie to the Nazis? (Perfect Duty NOT to) 2) do you have a duty to tell the truth to the Nazis? (Imperfect Duty to DO, not required) So it’s possible to stay consistent with Kant’s requirements while not being forced to aid the Nazis.

Lastly, have you heard of James Cornman’s Utilitarian Kantian Principle? He blended the two theories to come up with: “Treat as many people as ends in themselves and as few people as means as possible.” It both feels like a cop-out and is sheer genius, depending on how you use it; I’ve found it useful while retaining principles.

Love the podcast so far, looking forward to hearing more eps (I’m listening mostly in order, though I skipped Wittgenstein to get to Utilitarianism and Kant since I like them and wanted to see how you covered them).

By: Wes Alwan

Wes Alwan — Mon, 10 May 2010 15:55:23 +0000

Thanks for this Trevor –I’ll check it out.

By: Trevor M

Trevor M — Mon, 10 May 2010 02:16:55 +0000

Regarding the Anne Frank example in this episode, I was surprised that nobody brought up Kant’s own position on the matter, as he covered it in his paper “On the Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns” (http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/KANTsupposedRightToLie.pdf). The situation he describes is obviously not identical to the Anne Frank case, but in the example he gives, a murderer at the door asking where his intended victim is, should serve as a serviceable analogue. From this article at least, it looks to be clear that Kant would indeed have sold the Frank family out if the SS came to his door looking for them.