1. Define deontology. Explain why Kant is called a deontologist, not a teleologist. What characteristics should a moral system have according to Kant?

2. Below is a summary of some key points of Kant's theory. Explain these points in your own words.

a. First Proposition - "to have ‘moral worth’ an action must be done for the sake of duty" (Solomon and Greene, 264). Consequences are not relevant (contra Utilitarianism)

b. To have moral worth the motive of an act cannot be selfish purpose or inclination. Kant uses the examples of an honest tradesman, preserving one’s own life, two philanthropists, securing one’s own happiness, and pathological/practical loves to illustrate this point. Note the difference between acting in conformity with duty and acting strictly from duty).

c.. Second Proposition - "An action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose that is to be attained by it, but in the maxim according to which the action is determined." (Kant in Solomon and Greene, 264).

d. Third Proposition - "Duty is the necessity of an action done out of respect for the [moral] law" (Kant in Solomon and Greene, 265).

e. Duty is determined by applying a categorical imperative rather than a hypothetical imperative. There are several forms or versions of Kant’s categorical imperative. Two we will focus on are:

1) The willing a universal law form: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. (Kant in Solomon and Greene, 279)."

2)Never as a means only form: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means."(Kant in Solomon and Greene, 287) Another translation by T. K. Abbott is "So 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" (M. Henberg and K. P. George, eds. Readings in the Development of Moral Thought,. 2^nd ed. [Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt, 1992] 150.)

3. Kant argues that the only good without qualification is a good will. Why are talents, gifts of fortune and happiness not good in themselves? How do Kant's views compare to Aristotle's? What is the role of reason in relation to a good will?

4. What are the points of the honest tradesman, suicide, and philanthropist examples? What is the difference between pathological and practical love?

5. Show how Kant employs his willing a universal law form of the categorical imperative in his second (a lying promise) and fourth (helping those in distress) examples. Create parallel examples of your own.

NOTE: To apply the willing a universal law form of the categorical imperative, you must answer the following questions (This is a modified version of Solomon and Greene's questions.)

a. What is the maxim on which the action is based?

b. When universalized, is the maxim logically consistent? Can it still occur when universalized, or is it self-defeating?

If so, then ask:

c. Does willing the maxim as a universal law lead the will to contradict itself? Can it be willed whatever position one is in? Can one reverse positions (change places) and still will it?

If the universalized maxim is self-contradictory, it leads to perfect, strict inflexible duties. For example, one has a perfect duty not to lie. If willing a universalized maxim leads to the will contradicting itself, an imperfect, laxer meritorious duty is involved. For example, a prosperous person has an imperfect duty to help those in distress.

6. Be able to apply the willing a universal law form of the categorical imperative to hypothetical or real cases such as those mentioned in class. For example, would Kant approve of a country club that excludes blacks? A business and professional women's club that excludes men? Lying to the Nazis about a Jew hiding in your basement? A used car dealer that does not tell a buyer of a non-hazardous defect in a car?

7. Show how Kant applies the never as a means only form of the categorical imperative in his second and fourth examples. Why does he believe this form is equivalent to the first?

8. What is the kingdom of ends? How does Kant distinguish between value and dignity?

9. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Kant's approach ?

Positive elements of Kant's system often mentioned include its universal, unconditional, á priori, autonomous, rational character; its emphasis on human freedom and responsibility; its emphasis on motives rather than consequences and the fact that all its principles are derived from one primary principle. Some see it as a response to Hume. Kant's system embodies two of our common sense (traditional) principles of ethics: 1) do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or, treat other people the way you want to be treated. 2) Don't use people (merely as means or as means only).

Be able to describe the following criticisms of Kant’s system and tell how Kant might respond to each:

1) What does the Categorical .Imperative actually cover? Will it apply to all kinds of moral problems?

2) Kant assumes the legitimacy of current institutions and practices.

3) There is a difficulty in forming maxims. How general or specific should they be?

4) Cases of Conflict of Duty Arise.

5) Kant's "logic" is really a concern for consequences, a kind of rule utilitarianism.

6) Lack of integration of emotion and ethos.

7) Focus on the universal and abstract ignores important obligations to particular persons in concrete circumstances.

NOTE: For Kant, moral judgments are ultimately based on à priori principles: "...the moral judgment that `we ought to tell the truth' is on principle the same as the scientific judgment that `every change must have a cause.' What makes them similar is that both of these judgments come from our reason and not from the objects we experience. Just as our theoretical reason brings the category of causality to visible objects and thereby explains the process of change, so also the practical reason brings to any given moral situation the concept of duty or ought (Stumpf, From Socrates to Sartre. 2nd edition, 317)."