Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (630,000)
UTSC (30,000)
Philosophy (1,000)
PHLA11H3 (100)
Lecture

Ethics - Session 7


Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHLA11H3
Professor
Kelin Emmett

Page:
of 3
Ethics Session 7
Kantianism
against utilitarianism
does not agree that morality is about improving overall human happiness
by German philosopher, Kant
thought that proposals yielded the same verdicts
derive one from the other
every action has a maxim
actions without maxims are not actions
ex. sneezing, body spasms
fundamental principle
universalizability
the principle of universalizability (TPU)
rejects the utilitarianism idea of right acts
an act is right if and only if utility is maxed
maxim
1. intended action
2. why do the action
reason
difference between utilitarianism and Kantianism
utilitarianism
trying to do the action and why the action is being carried out does not matter
only the result of the action matters
Kantianism
trying to do the action and why the action is being carried out matters
maxims determine whether an action is permissible or not
the result of the action does not matter
Mill
would say that Pinky is not worthy of praise
about the maxim
universalizability
if and only if you and everyone can possibly do it
three steps to TPU
1. why and what
2. imagine everyone else doing it
not everyone needs to have the same goal
it just needs to be possible for everyone to have the same goal
3. Could I do it too?
could be (or “could happen”)
does not have to succeed
if the answer to 3. is “yes”
the actions is permissible
if the answer to 3. is “no”
the action is not permissible
unfair
you’re not above others
amoralists’ challenge
believes that morality exists
does not care that morality exists
does not think that morality applies to them
does not see reason for thinking that morality applies to them
simply does not care about morality
Kant
amoralists are wrong
inconsistence and irrational
thinks that by not obeying universality
amoralists are acting inconsistent
reply to amoralists
morality applies to everyone, not just you alone
rational agents
can’t escape bindings
categorical imperatives
moral obligations
hypothetical (H) imperatives
demand “x” of us to project desires
if want x
you do y