1. What is a teleological approach in ethics? What philosophers exemplify it?

2. What is a deontological approach in ethics? What philosopher(s) exemplify it?

3. What does Kant believe are the descriptive phrases of morality as we experience it? What would Kant say about moral relativity? What does Lawrence Kohlberg's research show in regard to this question? Which statement or statements about the 6 ways of valuing human life are closest to Kant's position on the value of human life?

4. Explain the difference between categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative?

5. Is happiness a necessary end for human beings in Kant's view? Are the means to happiness clearly knowable for Kant? What agreement can you identify here between the view of Aristotle and the view of Kant?

6. Can morality be based on happiness for Kant? Explain. What can morality be based on? Explain.

7. What word would Kant substitute for selfishly? for unselfishly? Why is a human being obligated to will in a self-consistent way? Explain for Kant?

Feedback 5 creates an imaginary conversation(created by the teacher) between Kant and Aristotle. In this conversation, the teacher actually states his own evaluation of Kant and Aristotle by showing how hewould use the thought of Aristotle and Kant to create a dialogue between the two. The final result is the teacher's evaluation of Kant and Aristotle.

8. How would Kant evaluate moralities based on happiness? Explain.

9. What is the point about a person who does not choose to strive to be happy as the goal of life? Explain.

10. How could Aristotle reply to Kant's evaluation of happiness as the basis of morality?

11. How would Kant reply to Aristotle?

12. How would Aristotle reply to Kant?

13. How would Kant respond?

14. How would Aristotle respond? So how does the teacher view moral principles?

15. How does Kant compare his second formulation of the categorical imperative to the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

16. What is the analysis of the unversalization test?

17. What is the analysis of the principle of humanity as an end in itself? Feedback 6.

18. Kant considers four moral problems. What is Kant's answer to each problem, first, based on the first formulation of the categorical imperative; and second, based on the second formulation of the categorical imperative. Explain Kant's application in each case.

19. Is Kant's solution of problem 3 consistent with his concept of humanity as an end in itself in the teacher's evaluation? Also, examine problem 4 in this regard.

20. Is Kant's solution of problem 3 consistent with his first formulation of the categorical imperative in the teacher's evaluation? Also, examine problem 4 in this regard.

21. What is Castaneda's evaluation of this proposed principle, 'Everybody but me ought to refrain from inflicting pain just for the sake of enjoying pain behavior"? Explain.

22. In the teacher's evaluation of Kant, is the moral point of view a logical deduction from the rationality of the human being? Explain. Analyze an example which you offer which illustrates the teacher's point of view.

Instruction 1: Define the Problem

In studying the philosophy of Aristotle and John Stuart Mill, we have found that they based moral principles on the desire for happiness. Those acts were right which led to the ultimate end of action, happiness. For example, temperance is right because by being temperate, a person becomes happy. The ethics of Aristotle and Mall have been called teleological based on the Greek word telos which means end. For in their ethics, acts are right because they lead to the end of happiness.

In Kant's philosophy we shall see that an act is right, not because it leads to happiness, but simply because it is right. In other words, being just with one's fellows is right, not because you become happy by being just, but simply because justice is right. Of course, Kant does give a reason why justice is simply right, regardless of whether or not you become happy by being just. We shall be looking into his reasoning on these notes. His ethics has been called a decontological ethics from the Greek word, deon which means right. For in his view, acts are right, not because they lead to happiness nor because of any consequences of those acts, but simply because they are right as commanded by conscience.

The problem we will discuss is whether moral principles should be based on happiness or upon something other than happiness, something other than the happy consequences of action .

Instruction 2: Gather Information

In order to decide whether or not moral principles should be based on happiness or something else, we need to clarify our experience of morality. Kant believes that the normal mature person experiences necessary and universal moral obligations. He believes that every adult experiences that he or she ought to do or ought to avoid the same rights and wrongs.

1. Draw from your own experience and give examples of whether or not you experience moral obligation.

2. Also from these examples, try to find out if your group shares some common moral obligation.

3. Finally, does the group agree that every adult, no matter what the culture, will share some common moral obligations, common to every adult? On this third point, give some examples to illustrate your answer.

Feedback 2:

(1) Many philosophers would agree that normal people share an experience of moral obligation. To have a sense of right and wrong, people would generally say, is part and parcel of a responsible and sane adult. A person without a sense of moral obligation would be assumed to be abnormal and that there was something seriously lacking in the development of that person. Perhaps the person had been shut in an attic as a child and depraved of human contact. But normal development results in an experience of moral obligation: some things are right and others wrong. (Of course, philosophers will disagree on how to explain this experience of moral obligation.)

(2) Kant would say that the students would find many obligations in common. For example, students would say the following things are morally wrong and they are obligated to avoid them:

(a) murder: the deliberate taking of another student's life is wrong

(b) rape: forcible sexual Intercourse is wrong;

(c) violation or professional secrecy: the telling by a psychologist at JMU of a student's psychological confidences is wrong;

(d) the betrayal of one's basic values: violating one's own integrity is wrong;

(e) perjury: lying under oath is wrong.

(3) There is no philosopher who fails to recognize that moral decisions have to be made in the context of a situation, taking all relevant factors into account. For example, Aristotle has argued that the virtuous act is what the practically wise Person would decide according to a mean relative to the individual. This practically wise decision should, of course, take into account the culture of the time and place and individuals involved. There are many moral practices which are right in one culture and wrong in another, but most philosophers have argued like Kant that there are certain universal values and moral laws that ought to be recognized in every culture. Now the specific application of these universal values in different cultures wilt bring about some differences in practice. But, in general, the values are the same or should be the same. Recent research by Lawrence Kohlberg in anthropology and psychology supports the view of Kant. Kolhberg's research which is well accepted shows that individuals go through six stages in the development of their moral attitudes, no matter what their culture. For example, with regard to the value of human life, he has identified the following six stages:

(1) The value of a human life is confused with the value of physical objects and is based on the social status or physical attributes of its possessor.

(2) The value of a human life is seen as instrumental to the satisfaction of the needs of its possessor or of other persons.

(3) The value of human life is based on the empathy and affection of family members and others toward its possessor.

(4) Life is conceived as sacred in terms of its place in an absolute moral or religious order of rights and duties.

(5) Life is valued both in terms of its relation to community welfare and in terms of life being a universal human right.

(6) Belief in the sacredness of human life as representing a universal human value of respect for the individual. (Kohlberg, "the Child as Moral Philosopher," Readings in Psychology Today, 1st ed., pp. 249-254)

As Kohlberg sums up this point "Socrates, Lincoln, Thoreau and Martin Luther King tend to speak without confusion of tongues."

Instruction 3: Specify Constraints

Kant distinguishes between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. A categorical imperative is an absolute command; there are no conditions no if's, and's, but's, maybe's; there is simply: "Thou shalt! A hypothetical imperative is a conditional command; there are conditions: "On the condition that you want to achieve a certain end such as get to New York, then you must take the required means to get there. n

(1) Do you agree with Kant that morality is experienced as a categorical imperative or as a hypothetical imperative? To experience morality as a categorical imperative would be: No matter what your individual desires are you ought to avoid doing murder, rape, perjury. Again, no matter what your goals, you ought to avoid doing murder, rape, perjury. To experience morality as a hypothetical imperative would be: On the condition that you desire to live in harmony, with others, you ought to avoid murder, rape, perjury. Again, on the condition that you have the end of happiness, you ought to avoid murder and rape, because you will be punished if you murder or rape.

(2) Is happiness a necessary end for human beings? Can the means to happiness be necessary: Or are the means to happiness dependent upon the way each individual feels? You do not have to agree with Kant’s answers to these questions, but it will help to discuss his views.

Feedback 3: Constraints

Kant agrees with Aristotle that happiness is a necessary end desired by human beings. For as conscious beings, aware of needs, we necessarily desire to satisfy those needs, in other words, to be happy. Even the individual who despairs of happiness as a goal and denies that human nature was made to be happy can be interpreted by another person to be exemplifying the desire for the natural longing for happiness. Why should the person be unhappy unless the person were made to be happy and cannot attain it! (Of course, if one were to say this directly to the frustrated person in despair, that person would deny what was being said.) Perhaps the truth that humans are made for happiness cannot be shown directly in debate with such a person but must be elicited from that person through friendship and understanding. Would you agree?

Kant argues that the means to happiness are not necessary. An individual would have to be omniscient in order to determine with certainty what would make him happy. Only by complete knowledge of the future would an individual know whether present choices will lead to a permanent attainment of happiness. Kant argues that morality is experienced as a categorical Imperative, as an absolute command. No matter what my likings or preferences, no matter what my feelings, Kant argues that every human person is worthy of respect precisely because the individual is a person. Normal people will experience an obligation to respect the value of persons. Those people who do not experience such an obligation have had their moral development thwarted on some lower stage. Would you agree?

Instruction 4: Create Solutions

The problem is whether moral principles should be based on happiness or upon something other than happiness.

(1) Create a solution for basing moral principles on happiness. More than one solution may be possible (2) Create a solution for basing moral principles, not on happiness or what is willed, but on the way in which the person wills what he desires.

Feedback 4: Solutions

(1) There may be several moralities based on happiness:

(a) Aristotle and the Stoic Natural Law concept. (b) Epicurean concept. (c) Bentham's concept. (d) John Stuart Mill's concept, akin to (a).

In all these theories, acts are good because they lead to happiness. Because they define happiness differently, they specify different acts as leading to happiness. Aristotle's concept of happiness includes satisfaction of general and unique human needs. In order to learn how to satisfy these needs, an individual must learn from much experience the prudential guidelines for satisfying his or her unique needs and general needs. Some kinds of acts such as murder are such that no wise person ought to do them. Reason can discern, granted Aristotle's concept of the end of happiness, that murder prevents that end from being realized in the person being murdered. There are other kinds of acts such as justice and friendship that every wise person ought to do in order to be happy. These positive acts require an application of general guidelines in a wise way by each individual. What reflection does is suggest various counsels or virtues such as temperance, prudence, and courtesy which do on the average promote well-being or happiness.

(2) Morality based not on what is willed but on the way the person wills. Kant argues that we cannot avoid wanting to be happy; it is a necessary desire for a rational, finite being. However, the moral point of view depends on the way in which happiness is willed, that is, either unselfishly, that is, rationally, or selfishly, that is , irrationally. As a rational being, Kant affirms, a human being is obligated to will rationally or in a self-consistent way. If I treat myself one way but others in a different way, then I am not acting in a rational way towards persons. If I respect the value of person in myself, then I ought to respect the value of person in everyone.

Instruction 5: Apply constraints and evaluate solutions:

Using the constraints which Kant has worked out and your group's own constraints which the group has worked out, evaluate the solutions proposed by Kant and by your own group.

Feedback 5: Evaluate solutions.

Kant argues that moralities based on happiness can give only hypothetical imperatives since each person defines the goal of happiness in his or her own way. Happiness in the abstract definition is a necessary end, but the means to this goal cannot be clearly known.

If a person does not choose to strive to be happy as the goal of life, it would appear that it is impossible to base morality on happiness. For the person refuses to consider action in the light of whether or not it leads to happiness.

Therefore, happiness is too subjective to base morality upon, Kant concludes.

Aristotle could reply, granted that a person does choose to seek happiness, it is a matter of wisdom and practical experience to work out the virtues that will lead to reasonable satisfaction of desires.

But Kant could argue, granted that a person does choose to seek happiness, the person still goes on to give a unique definition to happiness and to the means to happiness.

Aristotle could reply that in depth understanding of the unique and general needs of humans requires an affirmation that the good habits or virtues of justice, friendship, temperance, courage, and wisdom are necessary means to happiness.

Kant's response would be that morality need not be based on human needs and desires since they are too subjective and changeable. Kant wants an unchanging foundation in pure reason. Simply from the fact that a being is rational and free, Kant affirms, we know that such a being is worthy of respect. No matter what our desires and needs, we know that it is wrong to use a person as a thing. Morality is experienced as a categorical imperative, an absolute command and only a morality based on something absolutes the dignity and rationality of the person, can give absolute commands.

The response of Aristotle can be similar to the response which Kant gave to Aristotle. Kant had said, in this imaginary dialogue, that a person has to choose to be happy before we can begin to base moral decisions on the desire for happiness. In a similar argument, Aristotle may say that a person has to choose to value himself/herself before we can begin to base moral decisions on the value and rationality of the human person. Most people choose to be happy and choose to value the dignity of the human person. Most people choose to be happy and choose to value the dignity of the human person, Aristotle would argue; a fortunate upbringing will enable an individual with happy and living parents to choose to be happy and to love the self. Moral principles should be understood as dependent upon whatever basic values the self chooses for itself. In the light of such a choice, moral principles are conditional commands, commands conditioned upon one's basic choice.

Instruction 6: Analysis and Synthesis

Most of the analysis and synthesis will be given in the feedback. Please discuss the following question in order to analyze Kant's principle of morality. Kant gives the following formulation: "So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end, never as means only." Is Kant's formulation the same as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" Or is Kant's formulation a better statement of the moral principle? Discuss by analyzing some examples of people doing things to others that they would let others do to themselves.

Feedback 6: Analysis and synthesis

Kant believes that the Golden Rule of the gospel, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is not the basic statement of the moral law. One problem with the statement is that people too often interpret it in terms of their emotional needs. But emotional needs can be so variable in people and even at times immoral. Suppose a person feels the need to hurt himself. Should the person use that feeling in order to judge how he should treat himself and others? Hardly, Kant would argue, for the person could judge his emotional needs in terms of how those needs respect the value of the person whether in himself or in others. Very often, feelings can be a good guide to dealing with others, but such feelings have been developed in accord with correct moral judgment. It is moral judgment based on the absolute value of the person that is the foundation of all moral judgments for Kant.

Analysis of the Universalization Test: One way of formulating the categorical imperative or basic moral command is: "Act only on the maxim by which you can will that it, at the same time, should become a general law." An individual can test a proposed guideline for one's own will by considering if the guideline should be adopted by other rational beings. For example, if an individual proposes to himself the following maxim, "Cheat in this test, n he can test if that is in accord with the moral law by thinking out whether or not he would universalize his maxim. Since universalizing the act of cheating, since letting everyone cheat, would destroy the purpose of cheating, no rational being would universalize cheating. In applying this universalization test, Kant is universalizing the general type of conduct in order to test its morality. He is not universalizing a particular act under particular circumstances. For example, he is not testing whether it is all right to cheat when every one else is cheating in a civil service examination. Another example: he would not approve lying under oath even when the witnesses on the other side of an issue are lying under oath. To universalize particular acts under their particular circumstances might lead to extreme laxness; to universalize general kinds of acts leads to a rigors which permits very few exceptions to moral laws.

Analysis Instruction: Develop several examples illustrating the proposed universalization of particular maxims or acts under particular circumstances and illustrating the universalization of general maxims or kinds of acts.

Analysis of the Principle of Humanity: When Kant argued that morality should not and could not be based on happiness, he was arguing against basing moral judgments on the results of action. Kant is against the position of Aristotle and Mill which would say that temperance is a virtue because temperance makes people happy, because temperance satisfies their needs in a harmonious way. Now when Kant goes on to argue that human nature or the person is an absolute end, an end in itself, which everyone ought to respect, Kant says,

"we must abstract from every end to be effected: (since this would make every will only relatively good); it follows that in this case of the second formulation of the categorical imperative the end must be conceived not as end to be effected. but as An independently existing end. Consequently. it is conceived only negatively that is. as that which we must never act against. and which therefore must never he rewarded merely as a means. but must in every volition be esteemed as an end likewise."

Kant is saying that the value of the person which serves as the basis of the moral law is not an end to be effected. For that would base morality on the consequences of action. Rather the dignity of the person should never be harmed.

Instruction 7: Evaluate the Solution

On another page, I have placed Kant's statement of four moral problems with his answers to these problems. The statement of the problems by Kant is very abstract, and you may need to imagine your own details in order to give a solution. The general question we are to answer is this: "Do Kant's principles give satisfactory answers to the four problems?" Follow these four steps:

(1) Work out your own answers individually and as a group to the four problems.

(2) Check your answers with Kant's decision and reasoning, discussing whether you or Kant has the better reasoning.

(3) Identify whether your decision used the same principle which Kant did, whether or not you reached the same decision as he did. For example, did you use the principle that this kind of act may be universalized, and did you use the principle that this kind of act respects the dignity of the human being as an end in itself? Why did you reach a different decision or the same declsion as Kant did?

(4) In solving problem 1-4, does Kant use the principle of the dignity of the human being negatively, as an end not be harmed, or positively, as an end to be advanced?

Feedback 7: Evaluate the Solution

Kant's solution of problem 3 is not consistent with his concept of humanity as an end in itself. The problem is: Should a person neglect to develop his talents when these talents may make him a useful man in many respects? Kant answers that a person might refuse to develop his talents and that this refusal does not violate humanity in one's own person as an end in itself. However, Kant says that action should not only not violate humanity as an end in itself; action should also advance this end. Hence, it is immoral not to develop one's talents when they may be useful to others.

This solution by Kant violates his own guideline that moral decisions should not be based on the consequences of action. Kant had said that an act should not be judged in the light of it; consequences or ends to be effected. Kant had said that the principle of humanity should not be used as a positive goal but as a negative principle which prohibits actions against the value of the human being. As Rader argues in The Endurinq Questions, p. 564. "But is it possible to carry out the formula, 'so act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only,' without a view to the effects of actions? Must we not have some positive idea of the end of man and how to achieve them?" For example, how do we know whether one method of education is better than another, unless we see the effects upon the development of human value? And how do we know what the conditions of political and economic freedom should be, unless we see the effects upon the development of the community and individuality and creativity? Give some examples in your Group in which the value of the person is used as a positive principle. based on consequences for good.

Kant's solution of problem 3 is also not in accord with his first formulation of the categorical imperative, "Act only on that maxim where thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law. n For Kant admits "that a system of nature could indeed subsist with such a universal law" in which people dedicate themselves to enjoyment rather than to development of their useful talents. If a person is willing to universalize the maxim that a person may not develop his useful talents, then Kant's universalization test fails to show that failure to develop one's useful talents is not morally good.

Furthermore, there is the problem that a person may make a universal statement such as, "Everybody but me ought to refrain from inflicting pain just for the sake of enjoying the sight of pain behavior." Castaneda in The Structure of Morality has argued that the above principle is morally evil but that it violates no rule of logic. Kant had defended his universalization test by arguing that immoral maxims can be discovered by testing to see if the proposed maxim can be universalized. If the maxim cannot or would not be universalized, without a contradiction, then it is immoral for a rational being. Castaneda has shown that an immoral individual can universalize his maxim of action, claiming that there is a relevant difference between himself and all others, that relevant factor being his own unique identity. Such a difference is not significant for those who choose the moral point of view. But that is precisely the problem. The immoral person does not choose the moral point of view.

To choose the moral point of view is not a logical deduction from the rationality of the human being, we may argue in evaluation of Kant. To choose the moral point of view is precisely to make a choice, not a deduction forced upon any rational being by reasoning alone. This choice is the decision to value both oneself and all others precisely as persons. The principle of humanity stated by Kant is an excellent guideline. But it has to be chosen. Some people fail to make such a choice. Some reasons can be given for making the moral point of view one's choice in life. For example, we can say that the consequences of such a choice are good for all concerned. But, nevertheless, the choice remains a choice. Give some examples of life styles in which people make a fundamental choice of the moral point of view; also in which they do not make such a choice. For example, describe the following choices, first, from the point of view of one who decides to live that choice morally, and secondly, from the point of view of one, who decides to live that choice immorally:

(1) Politician (2) Lawyer (3) Doctor (4) Labor Union Organizer (5) Teacher (6) Novelist (7) Student (8) Advertiser (9) Merchant

,