Conclusion:
Only a
categorical imperative is dependent on autonomy.
Premises:
1. An
imperative is an obligation that we behave in a certain way defined by reason.
There are two types of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical (414-415).
a.
The
hypothetical imperative is an action that is good for some purpose, either
possible or actual (416).
b.
(I)
The hypothetical imperative can be explained as doing A in order to achieve B.
c.
The
categorical imperative is an action that is good in and of itself (416).
d.
(I)
The categorical imperative can be explained as just doing A because it is the
right thing to do.
2.
The
categorical imperative is driven by morality, a law to do the right thing (416).
a.
It
is not concerned with it being a means to an end; it is only concerned with
being good because it is the right thing to do (416).
b.
The
“will” is what enables a person to choose between right and wrong (i.e.
morality) (417).
3.
Every
rational being is an end in himself (438).
a.
A
rational person must not think of himself or herself as a means to a purpose
(437).
b.
A
rational person must recognize that other rational beings are also ends in
themselves (universal kingdom of ends) (438).
c.
The
kingdom is the union of different rational beings through common laws
(433).
d.
(I)
A rational person not only recognizes that he or she is acting of their own
will (i.e. autonomously), but that other rational beings are doing so as well.
4.
A
person is a member of the kingdom of ends when he both imposes and is subject
to universal laws. He or she should be subject to will of no other than his or
herself (433).
a.
There
are three principles of morality: a form consisting in universality, a matter
or an end, and a characterization of all maxims meaning that all maxims under
their own law must harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends (436).
5.
Autonomy
is the basis of human dignity (436).
This is a pretty good analysis, but there are some things that we need to remember to keep the argument clear. So the basis of deontology is to describe actions as being done not for an end, but because it is the right thing. When you talk about the categorical imperative, it is an action that we must take for the sake of the good of the action, not because of some end we hope to achieve. From this, we establish the universality of a maxim and if it passes the test, then it is in fact a categorical imperative, or simply the moral law that we must in turn follow. The biggest thing you really needed to have mentioned was that the categorical imperative, due to its status as the moral law, becomes a duty for the sake of doing the right action, not the right intention.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your argument outline, I thought it was really thought out and made a lot of sense. However, one thing I was slightly unsure of and also could possibly extend in thinking was in point B under the first section. Kant describes that a hypothetical imperative should promote happiness in an action (415). So to extend point B and perhaps make it slightly clearer, I thought you could say that the hypothetical imperative can be explained as doing A in order to achieve B as long as B promotes or will contain some form of happiness. Because doing A in order to achieve B could mean anything. It could be an action that would be detrimental to someone or maybe hurt someone else, so adding that last bit makes it clear that B has to have happiness like Kant describes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your outline, but one thing that I came to ponder was the fact that it seems like kant expects that people will act moral and rational because that is the ends for them. For this to work that means all people will act in this manner otherwise it seems extremely subject to corruption and eventually the rise of power or gain for the one who is able to manipulate the system and set aside morals and rational process for personal gain. Line 3, (b & c) is where I found most of my confusion of how this system would deal with corruption. Your outline was helpful itself for me to better understand the text.
ReplyDeleteYour argument outline is very straight forward and easy to understand. However, I think it could benefit with an elaboration on your last point about autonomy. Your conclusion states that a categorical imperative is dependent on autonomy; yet you only reference autonomy once in your entire outline when you write, "Autonomy is the basis of human dignity," to conclude your outline. Autonomy is a key philosophical concept that is the ability to impose objective moral law onto oneself. Kant argues that autonomy is demonstrated by a person who makes decisions in their life based on respect for moral duty. Thus, an autonomous person acts morally solely for the sake of doing "good," regardless of other motivations or temptations. Kant presents this argument on the basis that a compliance with the moral law creates the essence of human dignity. I also agree with Daniel when he says, "the biggest thing you really need to have mentioned was that the categorical imperative (…) becomes a duty for the sake of doing the right action, not the right intention. Other than these points great work!
ReplyDelete