- What are the criteria for moral standing according to Kant?
- Do non-human animals have moral standing (moral importance)?
- If animals are not rational nor autonomous, is it okay to treat them in any way we like?
- We kill, eat, hunt, experiment on, "enslave" a wide range of animals. Humans have destroyed large parts of the natural environment depriving animals of a place in which to live. Does any of this matter morally? Why?
- Does Kant think that non-human animals have rights? Does he think that we have duties to them?
- Does deontologism really implicate that animals have only instrumental value? Do you agree with Korsgaard's "reading" of deontology?
- Are animals means to men’s ends?
- Is there anything intrinsically wrong in torturing animals?
- Is it a moral duty to be vegetarians?
- Is it immoral to use animals for scientific experiments?
- Do non-human animals have desires and beliefs that can be satisfied/frustrated and true/false? Why is it morally important to answer that question?
venerdì 19 febbraio 2010
Tutorial # 6. Deontologism at Work. Kant on Animals. Discussion Questions
After having read "Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals" by Christine M. Korsgaard, think about the following questions.
Tutorial # 6. Deontologism at Work. Kant on Animals
Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative:
Humanity as an End in Itself
(see Shafer-Landau, Ethical Theory. Introduction to part IX)
- Good Will: Motivation to do one's duty for its own sake.
- Only rational and autonomous beings have a will.
- Autonomy: The capacity to form goals free of external constraints/influence.
- Rationality: The faculty to reason appropriately about the implications of one's goals.
- Autonomy and Rationality generate the moral demand to treat others with respect.
Principle of Humanity:
"Act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only"
+ Immanuel Kant "We Have No Duties to Animals"
(from Lectures on Ethics - in Ethical Theory. An Anthology, pp. 395 - 396)
"If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog... but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealing with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals."
"... so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. ... Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity."
"Vivisectionists. who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals must be regarded as man's instruments."
venerdì 12 febbraio 2010
Tutorial #5. Deontologism. Discussion Questions
Try to think about these questions in light of "The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" by Immanuel Kant (pp. 525 - 536 On our "Ethical Theory" textbook) .
Another very good reference is the "Deontological Ethics" entry by Larry Alexander & Michael Moore in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
Another very good reference is the "Deontological Ethics" entry by Larry Alexander & Michael Moore in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
- What should motivate moral action, according to Kant?
- What is the ‘good will’ and how does Kant argue that it alone is good without qualification?
- What is a categorical imperative and is Kant right about the validity and content of the categorical imperative?
- Do you think the good will is something subjective? In what sense?
- Kant writes (Groundwork, in Feinberg&Landau p. 626): “… in a being that has reason and a will, if the proper end of nature were its preservation, its welfare, in a word its happiness then nature would have hit upon a very bad arrangement in selecting the reason of the creature to carry out its purpose. For all the actions that the creature has to perform for this purpose … would be marked out for it far more accurately by instinct”. Do you agree? Does instinct serves happiness better than reason?
- Kant (Groundwork, in Feinberg&Landau p. 627) argues that “the true vocation of reason must be to produce a will that is good in itself”. The premises of the argument are three: (I) “Reason is not sufficiently competent to guide the will with regards to its objects and the satisfaction of all our needs” (II) “Reason is nevertheless given to us as practical faculty, that is, as one that is to influence the will” (III) “Nature has everywhere else gone to work purposively in distributing its capacities”. Assess this argument.
- How do we know that an action is made not only in conformity with duty but also from duty?
- Can love be commanded?
- How does the representation of the law determine the will? Is respect for the law a causal relation?
- “You shall not murder”, or “You shall not lie” are examples of categorical imperatives: That is, they are duties that all rational beings ought to respect (recall Kant’s “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law”). Now, do you think we ought to respect a categorical imperative - no matter what?
- Consider this maxim: “Steal when you are too poor to feed yourself”. Would it pass the universalizability test? Would it be a moral law?
- Does Kant give us a moral theory that we can follow?
- Would the universalizability test solve moral dilemmas? E.g. consider the following. A mental with a gun in her hand ask you where your best friend is because she wants to kill your friend. Should you tell the truth to the mental? Or should you lie in order to protect your friend?
- For Kant the consequences of an action don’t bear on the moral status of the action. Do you agree? Imagine, e.g., a baby-sitter who by acting from duty keeps a baby warm by putting it in the microwave. Do you think that an unintentional bad consequence of an action made from duty don’t bear on the moral status of that action?
Tutorial # 5. Deontologism. Kant's Life. Some Anectodes
From Andreas Teuber's webpages:
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/kantbio.html
"Years of living frugally, increases in his salary, and honoraria for his publications enabled Kant in 1783 to buy a house on Prinzessinstra and to hire a cook. (A few years previous he had employed as his footman Martin Lampe, a retired Prussian soldier remembered for his dullness). At this time Kant reorganized his daily routine, which changed little for the rest of his life. He subjected himself to the severest regimen to maintain his health, for he was a small, frail man with a delicate constitution. He arose punctually at five o'clock and drank a few cups of tea while he thought about the day's lectures. At seven he went downstairs to the room reserved as his classroom and taught until nine. Then he wrote until lunch, which always began precisely at one o'clock. He looked forward to this meal with keen anticipation, not only because it was the only one he permitted himself but because it was a social event. Since he thought conversation aided digestion, and he was gregarious by nature, there were always from three to nine guests--never fewer than the graces, never more than the muses, he explained. As he did not like to talk shop in his free time, he selected the guests from a variety of occupations--politicians, doctors, lawyers, officers, merchants, students, colleagues, or anyone who happened to be passing through town and wanted to see him. The food was plentiful, the wine flowed freely, the atmosphere was casual, the conversation was stimulating. Women were not invited. This exclusion, coupled with his lifelong bachelorhood, led to speculation that he disliked women. This notion is incorrect. He often said about himself that when he needed a wife he was too poor to feed one, and when he was at last able to feed one he did not need one anymore.
After lunch came the famous walk, which he took every day regardless of the weather. It lasted precisely one hour, and the route rarely varied. He always walked alone, convinced that breathing through the mouth, which conversation necessitates, was unhealthy. This ritual was not without problems during the summer, for perspiration disgusted him; at the slightest indication he would seek out a shady spot and stand perfectly still until he was dry again. He spent the evening reading or writing. At precisely ten o'clock he went to bed. Unlike the rest of the house, the bedroom was never heated, even during frigid weather. The window was never opened, and he refused to keep a candle in the room; if he had to get up during the night he felt his way along a rope running from the bed to the door. When he was ready to fall asleep he always pronounced the name "Cicero" a few times.
In 1802, Kant discharged the man (named Lampe) who had faithfully served him for many years. He proved unable, however, to dismiss Lampe from his mind. The troubled philosopher finally entered a memorandum in his notebook: "Remember," it read, "from now on the name of Lampe must be completely forgotten."
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/kantbio.html
"Years of living frugally, increases in his salary, and honoraria for his publications enabled Kant in 1783 to buy a house on Prinzessinstra and to hire a cook. (A few years previous he had employed as his footman Martin Lampe, a retired Prussian soldier remembered for his dullness). At this time Kant reorganized his daily routine, which changed little for the rest of his life. He subjected himself to the severest regimen to maintain his health, for he was a small, frail man with a delicate constitution. He arose punctually at five o'clock and drank a few cups of tea while he thought about the day's lectures. At seven he went downstairs to the room reserved as his classroom and taught until nine. Then he wrote until lunch, which always began precisely at one o'clock. He looked forward to this meal with keen anticipation, not only because it was the only one he permitted himself but because it was a social event. Since he thought conversation aided digestion, and he was gregarious by nature, there were always from three to nine guests--never fewer than the graces, never more than the muses, he explained. As he did not like to talk shop in his free time, he selected the guests from a variety of occupations--politicians, doctors, lawyers, officers, merchants, students, colleagues, or anyone who happened to be passing through town and wanted to see him. The food was plentiful, the wine flowed freely, the atmosphere was casual, the conversation was stimulating. Women were not invited. This exclusion, coupled with his lifelong bachelorhood, led to speculation that he disliked women. This notion is incorrect. He often said about himself that when he needed a wife he was too poor to feed one, and when he was at last able to feed one he did not need one anymore.
After lunch came the famous walk, which he took every day regardless of the weather. It lasted precisely one hour, and the route rarely varied. He always walked alone, convinced that breathing through the mouth, which conversation necessitates, was unhealthy. This ritual was not without problems during the summer, for perspiration disgusted him; at the slightest indication he would seek out a shady spot and stand perfectly still until he was dry again. He spent the evening reading or writing. At precisely ten o'clock he went to bed. Unlike the rest of the house, the bedroom was never heated, even during frigid weather. The window was never opened, and he refused to keep a candle in the room; if he had to get up during the night he felt his way along a rope running from the bed to the door. When he was ready to fall asleep he always pronounced the name "Cicero" a few times.
In 1802, Kant discharged the man (named Lampe) who had faithfully served him for many years. He proved unable, however, to dismiss Lampe from his mind. The troubled philosopher finally entered a memorandum in his notebook: "Remember," it read, "from now on the name of Lampe must be completely forgotten."
Tutorial # 5. Deontologism. Kant's Ethics. A Very Short Primer
From http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/kantbio.html
Prof. Andreas Teuber's webpage
"In answering the question of what ought to be, Kant says that instead of our actions conforming to the facts--the situations in which we find ourselves or the inclinations we happen to have--they should conform to our principles. These principles are derived from reason. A true moral act, he says, depends on the motive of the action, not on the outcome. The only motive that is good in itself, without qualification, is the good will: that is, the desire to act according to duty. Duty is discovered by reason and is the same for everyone at all places and at all times. He formulates the moral law in his famous categorical imperative:
"Handle, so da die Maxime deines Willens jederzeit zugleich als Prinzip einer allgemeinen Gesetzgebung gelten könnte"
(Act in such a way that the principle of your will could at any time also become the principle of a universal law). In other words, if an action could not be made universal without contradicting itself, that action is immoral. Kant illustrates this principle with the example of the false promise.
To get himself out of a financial difficulty, a person proposes to borrow some money. He knows that he will never be able to pay the money back, but he also knows that he will not receive the loan unless he promises to repay the lender. Should he, then, falsely promise to pay the money back? A moment's reflection shows that if such an action were made universal--if everyone made false promises-the institution of promising would go out of existence, because no one would accept a promise anymore. Thus the false promise would, if made universal, negate or contradict itself; and self-contradiction is the epitome of irrationality. Immorality, then, is equivalent to irrationality
Prof. Andreas Teuber's webpage
"In answering the question of what ought to be, Kant says that instead of our actions conforming to the facts--the situations in which we find ourselves or the inclinations we happen to have--they should conform to our principles. These principles are derived from reason. A true moral act, he says, depends on the motive of the action, not on the outcome. The only motive that is good in itself, without qualification, is the good will: that is, the desire to act according to duty. Duty is discovered by reason and is the same for everyone at all places and at all times. He formulates the moral law in his famous categorical imperative:
"Handle, so da die Maxime deines Willens jederzeit zugleich als Prinzip einer allgemeinen Gesetzgebung gelten könnte"
(Act in such a way that the principle of your will could at any time also become the principle of a universal law). In other words, if an action could not be made universal without contradicting itself, that action is immoral. Kant illustrates this principle with the example of the false promise.
To get himself out of a financial difficulty, a person proposes to borrow some money. He knows that he will never be able to pay the money back, but he also knows that he will not receive the loan unless he promises to repay the lender. Should he, then, falsely promise to pay the money back? A moment's reflection shows that if such an action were made universal--if everyone made false promises-the institution of promising would go out of existence, because no one would accept a promise anymore. Thus the false promise would, if made universal, negate or contradict itself; and self-contradiction is the epitome of irrationality. Immorality, then, is equivalent to irrationality
venerdì 5 febbraio 2010
On How to Improve your Essay...
The most common comments you are likely to receive on your essays - and that I also receive on my own essays, are the following:
- "The structure and the goal of yor paper are not stated" "They are not obvious to the reader";
- "Explain this claim";
- "Inaccurate in reconstructing Mr X's view" "Be charitable!";
- "What do you mean here?" "I don't get it";
- "This is unclear, or confused, too hard to follow";
- "This is a technical term, be precise!";
- "Why? Give reasons!";
- "What's the relation between this claim and that claim?";
- "What is the conclusion?"; "Does your conclusion follow from the premisses?"
- "This is irrelevant" "Stick to the topic"
- "Give an example!"
MORALS:
If you anticipate these comments, you can prevent me to make them!
Thus your essay will improve.
If your essay does not receive the mark you expected, don't be discouraged.
Writing philosophy is not an easy task. But working seriously and constantly, your writing will improve for sure.
- "The structure and the goal of yor paper are not stated" "They are not obvious to the reader";
- "Explain this claim";
- "Inaccurate in reconstructing Mr X's view" "Be charitable!";
- "What do you mean here?" "I don't get it";
- "This is unclear, or confused, too hard to follow";
- "This is a technical term, be precise!";
- "Why? Give reasons!";
- "What's the relation between this claim and that claim?";
- "What is the conclusion?"; "Does your conclusion follow from the premisses?"
- "This is irrelevant" "Stick to the topic"
- "Give an example!"
MORALS:
If you anticipate these comments, you can prevent me to make them!
Thus your essay will improve.
If your essay does not receive the mark you expected, don't be discouraged.
Writing philosophy is not an easy task. But working seriously and constantly, your writing will improve for sure.
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
