Kant

• Good Will– Morally praiseworthy actions are

done from a sense of duty.

• Our duty is to follow the right moral rules.

Imperatives

• Moral rules contrast with the rules of prudence.– You ought to keep your promises.– If you want a safe car, buy a

Volvo.

• Moral rules are categorical imperatives.– They are not dependent on any

particular desire.

• Prudential rules are hypothetical imperatives.– They are binding only on those

with the appropriate desire.

Two Versions of the Categorical Imperative

• Follow moral rules that are universalizable. – This means you should only

accept a moral rule that a rational person would accept as binding for all persons.

• Always treat persons as ends and never merely as means.– This means that we should

recognize that each person has the same basic moral worth as we do.

Universalizability and Respect for Persons

• Moral principles are universalizable.

• The only condition under which this can be true is if something is intrinsically valuable and hence an end we all share.

• The only thing which is intrinsically good is humanity either in myself or in others.

• So the end of morality is to respect humanity in myself and other persons.

Decision procedure

– Describe morally relevant features of case.

– Look for principles.– Evaluate principles by using one

or both versions of the categorical imperative.

– Apply principle.– Describe actions which conform

to principle.– Assign praise or blame by looking

at intentions.

Alternative Decision Procedure

• Apply the second version directly.– Ask what action would be

consistent with treating persons as morally valuable and not as mere means to achieve some particular goal.

Moral Rights

• differ from legal rights

• are claims that society should enforce

• imply duties

• cannot be waived

• cannot be overridden

• apply universally

Moral Rights and Legal Rights

• We have legal rights solely on the basis of what is granted by our legal/political institutions.

• We have moral rights in virtue of characteristics we share as humans.

Moral rights and enforcement

• If someone has a moral right, then the rest of us are obligated to enforce that right.

Moral Rights and Duties

• Negative Rights View– If P has a right to X, then

everyone else is required to refrain from interfering with P’s having X.

• Positive Rights View– If P has a right to X, then

everyone else is required to refrain from interfering AND should cooperate, when necessary, in P’s having or doing X.

Moral Rights cannot be waived

• If someone has a right to something, they can not give up this right.

Moral rights cannot be overridden

• If someone has a right to something, the right claim is the most important consideration.

Moral rights are universal

• If someone has a moral right, then everyone else has the same right.

Who has rights?

• All humans

• All rational creatures

• All creatures who possess the relevant properties.

• Some properties which have been suggested:– rationality– moral agency– moral emotion– human biology

Decision Procedure

• What possible rights are involved?

• Are these really rights?– Should society enforce this claim

for everyone?– Do we have duties with respect to

X? – Can P give up the claim to X?– Would it be OK to ignore X if it

conflicted with some other consideration?

Decision Procedure

• Are the rights being violated?

• What would respecting these rights require?

• If rights are coming into conflict, how can we balance them?