Class Notes (810,429)
Canada (494,121)
POL312Y1 (43)
asasd (1)

pol320- oct. 18, 2012.docx

6 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George
Political Science

Oct. 18, 2012 Good will and duty a) Good will=good intention a. Idea that what is morality what is good… only thing good is good will itself. Cases of outcomes. Ex. Saving child… moral goodness your intention is important. You do it because its ‘right’ not for the benefits of the interest. For kant’s ex. the shopkeeper. And second example of the misanthrope(?) pg. 11-12 ex. Mother theressa. This is powerful because morality should be an equal opportunity. Everyone should have morals and having view of moral is tied with the personal morality kant is very clear that you cant base morality on love (love of humanity) because you cant command love. Its either there or not there. But morality should be there all the time. Thus morality is open to everybody. (Aristotle thinks that morality comes from character traits…condigent accidental arbituary thing saying that morality is limited to ppl who has the access for moral. ) kant creates morality so everyone has equal access to morality. This is pg. 16 b) Good intentions, virtues and results c) Good intention= acting from duty d) Acting from duty vs. acting in conformity with duty: the troubling case of the misanthrope e) Duty-law-universal law a. Moral particle…. Ppl do it because of duty sake. So then kant says …what does that mean? He tries to analyze this in an abstract way of thinking of the idea of having to do something for duty sake. No matter how you feel that day, no matter the circumstances are around you, you do it for duty sake. You do it on a principle* so what kind of prinicle would hold no matter what? This could be a universal law[regularity in nature which most time contingent things… ex. A is bigger than B B biiger than C thus A is bigger than C] it holds no matter what. Doing duty for duty sake gives role which you stick to no matter what. He says afterwards that what kind of role would that be? Universal law of nature…. Notion of duty… idea of a ‘law’ bound by something no matter what to the idea of a universal law** Review the argument: - 1 prop> a human action is morally goodm not because it is done from inclination or self interest but becaue it is done for the sake of duty Categorical Imperative 1 and 2 formulation - Hypothetical vs. categorical imperative st - 1 formulation: act only in accordance with the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law - 2 formulation: act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature. Could everyone act this way under the circumstances? Ask yourself.. what if everyone acted this way? Is there a problem with that? (think to yourself) this concept follows. Imperatives are commands. Objective principles: some principle that is true…. Ex. You cant be in two places at once (Toronto and paris at the same time) this is true if you are perfectly rational, (impossible) you couldn’t not will. Do something like ex. Make a promise being at Toronto ad paris at the same time. We are not perfectly rational. We are irrational. We are able to make that promise to be at the place at the same time. So objective principle is not necessary …. It must become commands/ imperatives. We require imperatives which are ‘oughts’. 2 kind of imperative. One is hypothetical. Ex. If you want x you OUGHT to do y. Ex. I want to be a professor but doesn’t want to get a phd… rationality will tell you that x needs ‘these needds’. Categorical imperative isn’t ought but no ‘if’ clause to it. Ex. I ought to do this not because I want to achieve this but it is an OUGHT without further goal?(despocation?). *** Form of categorical imperative is universalization test. Take your maxim (subject principle of action and try to universalize that) there are 4-6 categorical imperative. Kant says… theres one… most ppl say that its not identical. Frist 2 versions are the famous version of the categorical imperative. 1 formulation and the 2 formulation. Idea is that you want to know what you do is right or wrong. Ex. Desperate to get into law school…. You need to maintain certtin gpa. Confronted with paper due tomorrow and the prof will take 20 points if you don’t hand it in. DO or DIE…. As a good student… just this incident, Imma go and plagiarize. Kant says you have to think of the principles…. Ex. Formulate a pinricple… and so what if this was a unverisal law. Which mena everyone in this situation did exactly the same thing. This because a regularity. What would happen? Ask yourself could this world even make sense? Isn’t it deeply irrational? One sanwser might be yes. If this was the case, everyone did this, then mabe actually the whole system of submitting papers would be presnt because universal law…eeveryone under this would itself be undermind…. Test is a logical test. Where is the morality in that? Logically inconsistent. Morality is hardwired into reason itself** and so acting morally in the world is one way of maintain world and coherence. Immoral actiosn ar bassed on premises that are irrational and its irrational because its un-universializable.** moral laws should be universal… he is commiteed t othe idea that morality is ilogical. Because governed by principle of acting moral. Acting morally is going to be baes on principle that could govern the world. Morality is rational immorality is irrational** Pg 4.421 4.422 - Common sense application - Kant’s technical application Examples of duties. (a/b are perfect duties- they are the DONTS) (c/d are imperfect duties- we should all be benevolent. Care about those needs. Some can give millions and others can help different way. It’s a general way of saying help) a) Suicide (kant is adamant… that its wrong.) maxim is like this ex. Life is not liing because its too much pain therefore because I cant take life…principle…. Out of self-law, I take my life. If you think about this, what is wrong with this? Why would have self-love… to preserve thesmevles… its suppose to preserve you but also kill yourself? It just doesn’t make sense. a. Can self-love both promote and destroy life? b) Borrowing on a false promise (kind of like the plagiarism case…. Ex. False promise… universalize it maxim…. If it became law. Promising itself would disappear. If every knew that promises are broken…why promise in the first place a. Self-contradictory as promising would be impossible c) The ouch potato (developing talents) (principel of my action is ex. Whatever I don’t feel like improving my talents, create universal law of nature in which human being act on principle not to develop their talets. But most ppl (mill) says that its disaster because there will be no progress in the world. Kant cant say it has to do with consequences but logically wrong about it. Law of nature which says that we should develop our talens. Human being has certain capacity and nature intened us to develop those. Having a natural system that has a law…. They enjoy – that’s why we have progress. That is a principle of nature. ) a. There already exist a law of nature against couch potatoeness d) Helping those in needs (you cant will it because you want it. Mening that humans are in a essential sense for kant dependent and vulnerable. We are not self-sufficient and we require eachother. We are creature to pursue ends. How human beings move in the word. Ex. You want something, you get it. So if we pursue end, we run into ppl and require help. Therefore, you can imagein a world in which no one helped eachotehr. Cant will this because will the end is the will the needs. As humanbeing there are endsto pursue… and ned other ppl’s help therefore, illogicalness is that you cn will it because to will the end, you need ‘needs’ that will inovle some sort of aid from others. a. You ant will it because you want it b. Ex asked to give donation to charity. But you say no. so…why arnt you? And you answer .why should I help? Im independent- everyone should just make it on their own. Think to yourself… I have o obligation to help anybody. Principle that I have no obligation to hlp anybody…. If making this universal law of nature. If you imagine where everyone as matter of universal law acted in uch way to not help ppl, this would not be a contradictory world where its illogical to will that becaue there is a reciprocity built into ourselves… anything in the world, any ends at all, you live in the world- you reuire other ppl to meet your ends as well. Isn’t this selfish? Why being moral because you want pl to be moral to you (this is not Kantian) kant has to say there should be a reason that doesn’t have anything to receive back. It appears that this violates this idea of doing right for right sake. But what hes relly saying is not doing for reward. Structure of the willing. Will an end is to will the means* anything in the world, we have ends meaning you require other ppl* cant will to not help ppl. You are willing in the wolrd to require ppl to help eachtoher. This is an idea if the word makes sense is not a strong unviersalization test. Its depending on how you contstrcut the maxim. You can construct maxim…. Ex. I will kill my aunt wheneer I get the diamond ring that has bee
More Less

Related notes for POL312Y1

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.