HYPOTHETICAL AND CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES
A HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE [i.e., an imperative based on inclination
or desire] declares "a possible action to be practically necessary as a
means to the attainment of something else that one wills (or that one may
will)"(267).
A CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE [i.e., an imperative based on reason
alone] is one
that represents "an action as objectively necessary in itself apart from
its relation to a further end"(267).
Because morality holds
independently of what we desire or of any other facts about us, moral
imperatives must be categorical imperatives that apply with absolute necessity
to all rational beings and can be known a
priori (i.e., by reason alone, independent of experience).
KANT'S ACCOUNT OF AUTONOMY AND HETERONOMY
HETERONOMOUS CHOICE
= a choice based on a desire [e.g., based on a hypothetical imperative +
desire].
AUTONOMOUS CHOICE = a choice not based on any desire [e.g.,
based on a categorical imperative].
A person making a HETERONOMOUS CHOICE is said to have a
HETERONOMOUS WILL.
A person making an AUTONOMOUS CHOICE is said to have an
AUTONOMOUS WILL. For Kant, an autonomous
will is a moral will, the good will. It is good in itself, not because of any good
results that it brings about.
KANT'S ANTI-CONSEQUENTIALISM
Action from inclination, even if morally right, has "no
genuinely moral worth"(260).
Like actions based on honor, it deserves praise and
encouragement, but not esteem (260).
Why isn't happiness an adequate ground for morality? No determinate principles, only empirical counsels[WJT1] . Thus, no necessity.
"The problem of determining certainly
and universally what action will promote the happiness of a rational being is
completely insoluble"(269).
THE THREE VERSIONS OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
No. 1. [Universalizability Formula] "Act only on that maxim
through which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law"(270).
Kant's Examples
Initial example: Making a false promise (262).
"I can indeed will to
lie, but I can by no means will a universal law of lying"(262). Why not?
Four Illustrations
1. Suicide.
2. Borrowing money knowing that one will not pay
it back.
3. Neglecting one's natural
gifts.
4. Refusing to help others in great need whom
one could easily help.
What is the contradiction in our will?
"The contradiction that a certain
principle should be objectively necessary as a universal law and yet
subjectively should not hold universally but should admit of exceptions"(272).
No. 2: [Ends-in-themselves Formula] "Act in
such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an
end"(274).
Consider the four examples
again.
No. 3: [
Nozick on
Moral Side Constraints
Morality as Side Constraints
vs. Morality as an End or Goal
What is Nozick's
idea of a "utilitarianism of rights"(239)?
How does this idea help to
explain why a side constraints view fits with Kant's idea of morality as
categorical imperatives rather than hypothetical imperatives?
How
does Nozick's understanding of the
Ends-in-Themselves Formula differs from Kant's?
Gauthier's
Thesis: "Morality is a system of principles such that it is advantageous for
everyone if everyone accepts and acts on it, yet acting on the system of
principles requires that some persons perform disadvantageous acts"(94).
COLUMN
CHOOSER
|
|
|
C |
D |
|
ROW CHOOSER
|
C |
2,2 |
4,1 |
|
|
D |
1,4 |
3,3 |
2-PERSON PRISONERS' DILEMMA
(from Gauthier, p. 96).
Lower numbers represent higher ranked (more preferred)
outcomes.
I. Terminology
1. INDIVIDUALISTICALLY
RATIONAL (IR) = to Maximize One's Expected Return (Total Expected Benefits Less
Total Expected Costs). This sense of
rationality is the twentieth-century development of the concept of INSTRUMENTAL
RATIONALITY. It is the notion of
rationality that is employed in economics.
(Note that to be INDIVIDUALISTICALLY RATIONAL does not require that one
be an egoist.)
2. COLLECTIVE ACTION
PROBLEM = A situation in which everyone (in a given group) has a choice between
two alternatives and where, if everyone involved chooses the alternative act
that is Individualistically Rational (IR), the outcome will be worse for
everyone involved, in their own estimation, than it would be if they were all
to choose the other alternative (i.e., than it would be if they were all to
choose the alternative that is not IR).
By convention, in any Collective Action Problem, the IR
alternative is referred to as "Defection" ("D"); and the
non-IR alternative is referred to as "Cooperation" ("C").
N-Person
Collective Action Problem
Everyone else
|
|
Cooperates (C) |
Defects (D) |
|
I Cooperate (C) |
+100, +100 |
-101, -99.9 |
|
I Defect (D) |
+101, +99.9 |
-100, -100 |
FREERIDING. In an N-Person Collective Action Problem in
which most agents choose to Cooperate, Defectors are referred to as FREERIDERS,
because they benefit from the Cooperation of others, but are unwilling to
reciprocate Cooperation.
Gauthier's distinction:
the prudent person, the
"moral" (prudent but trustworthy) person, and the truly moral
(trustworthy and fair) person.
2, 2
C
C
D
4, 1
1, 4
C
D
D
3,
3
Player
#1 Player #2
The Sequential Two-Person Prisoner's Dilemma.
The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn
What does Huck's conscience
tell him to do? What does his reasoning
tell him to do?
What opposes his conscience
and his reasoning?
What moral should we draw
from this example about the relation between reasons and feelings in morality?
Nagel on Moral Luck
Kantian idea: Moral judgment of an agent is only
appropriate for things that are under the agent's control.
But we actually make moral
judgments of agents that depend on things that are not under the agent's
control.
"We
may be persuaded that these moral judgments are irrational, but they reappear
involuntarily as soon as the argument is over"(299).
Four kinds of moral luck:
(1) luck
in consequences
(a) Example of the truck
driver's negligence in not checking his brakes.
How harshly we judge the
negligence depends on whether or not a child died.
(b) Example of attempted
murder vs. successful murder.
(c) Examples under
uncertainty: "The outcome
determines what has been done"(298).
Strict liability "seems
irrational as a moral position"(298).
(2) constitutive
luck
Judgments of character (envious,
conceited, etc.) are often based on factors that are beyond the control of the
will.
(3) luck
in one's circumstances
Example of
the citizens of Nazi Germany.
(4) luck
in antecedent circumstances
This is the problem of
freedom of will.
What is the compatibilist solution?
What is Nagel's
dissatisfaction with the compatibilist solution?
The
internal vs. the external view of agents.
Scanlon's Contractualism
What is philosophical
explanation of morality? What two questions
does it answer?
(1) What is the subject
matter of morality?
(2) Given an answer to (1),
why would anyone care about it?
How does philosophical
utilitarianism answer those two questions:
(1) Subject matter of
morality: individual well-being.
(2) Source of moral
motivation: Sympathy for the well-being
of others. Well-being is clearly
something important.
What is Scanlon's contractualist answer to those two questions?
(1) Subject matter of
morality: the rules for regulating
behavior that people would agree to if they were motivated to find rules that
no one could reasonably reject.
(2) Source of moral
motivation: Desire to be able to justify
myself to others on grounds they could not reasonably reject.
Scanlon's Contractualist
Principle
"An act is wrong if its
performance under the circumstances would be disallowed by any system of rules
for the general regulation of behaviour which no one
could reasonably reject as the basis for informed, unforced general
agreement"(272).
The Three Stages of the an
Original Position Derivation of Morality
(1) Moral principles must be
impartially acceptable.
(2) Moral principles are
principles that would be chosen by rationally self-interested agents in
ignorance of their position in society.
(3) Two ways of understanding
the ignorance condition:
(3R) The
agent has no way of assigning probabilities to the different positions.
(3H) The agent assumes that
he has an equal chance of occupying anyone's position.
Rawls accepts (3R). He derives his two principles of justice,
including the maximin rule (maximize the expectations of the least well-off
group).
Harsanyi accepts (3H).
He derives the utilitarian rule of maximizing average expected utility
(Average Utilitarianism).
Scanlon rejects the move from
(1) to (2). He rejects the suggestion that the choice of a rational agent could
tell us what the principles of morality are.
He rejects both Rawls's maximin principle (maximize the expectation of
the least well-off group) and Harsanyi's Average
Utilitarianism (maximize average expected utility). He has no principle to substitute for theirs,
because he does not believe that there is a way to analyze what is reasonable in terms of what is rational.
What is the difference
between Scanlon's Interpersonal Point of View and Rawls's Original Position?