GROUP 2

Ethics
Nitro, Jaylord R.
Angeles, Mikaela Geisha A.
Escalona, Leandra Milaine B.
Luistro, Katrina L.
 Kantian Ethics
Immanuel Kant
..
“The morality of an action depends on a moral law that is universal and
absolute and not on the consequences of the action.”
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
he argues that the moral worth of an action is to be judged not by its
consequences but by the nature of the maxim or principle that motivates
the action
right actions are not necessarily those with favorable consequences but
those performed in accordance with correct maxims
"The only correct ones are those that can serve as universal laws because
they are applicable without exception to every person at any time", you
should act only on a maxim that can be universalized without
contradiction.
 SUPPOSE YOU NEED TO BORROW MONEY, BUT IT WILL
BE LENT TO YOU ONLY IF YOU PROMISE TO PAY IT BACK.
YOU REALIZE, HOWEVER, THAT YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE
TO HONOR THE DEBT. MAY YOU PROMISE TO REPAY THE
MONEY, KNOWING YOU WILL NOT KEEP THE PROMISE?
Kant argues that doing so is not permissible, because if it were a
universal law that promises could be made with no intention of keeping
them, then the practice of promising would be destroyed.
"THE CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE"
Immanuel Kant
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
categorical because it does not depend on anyone's particular desires,
and an imperative because it is a command of reason
Kant claims that it can be reformulated as follows:
So act that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in
any other person, always at the same time as an end, never merely
as a means.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Kant argues that a deceitful promise is immoral because a person

making such a promise is using another person only as a means, not
treating that individual as an end, a rational being worthy of
respect.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Temperament can be good or bad, depending on one's will and

character.
Happiness can make a person bold but consequently often reckless as
well, unless a good will is present to correct their influence on the
mind. Consequently, a good will seems to constitute the indispensable
condition even of our worthiness to be happy.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Moderation in emotions and passions, self-control, and sober

reflection are not only good in many respects: they may even seem to
constitute part of the inner worth of a person.
A good will it is good in itself — good only by virtue of its willing.
The moral worth of an action done out of duty has its moral worth, not
in the objective to be reached by that action, but in the maxim in
accordance with which the action is decided upon.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Duty is the necessity of an act done out of respect for the law.
Moral good is the idea of the law itself, present only in rational beings,
as the determining ground of the will, not an expected result.
Imperatives are commandments of reason that constrain a will, either
hypothetically or categorically.
Hypothetical imperatives declare actions as practically
necessary for achieving another goal
Categorical imperatives represent actions as objectively
necessary without any further end. Imperatives can be
hypothetically or categorically formulated.
 All rational beings crave for perfect happiness. The hypothetical
imperative should not be viewed as necessary for an uncertain purpose,
but as necessary for a purpose that is a priori and certain to be present in
everyone. Prudence, the skill in choosing the means to one's greatest
well-being, is a hypothetical imperative, as it is commanded not
absolutely but only as a means to a further end, and the imperative
concerning the choice of means remains hypothetical.
THE FORMULA OF
THE END ITSELF
Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant
 “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. “
BREAKDOWN OF THE IDEA
1. Treating Humanity as an End:
When you treat someone as an "end," you recognize their intrinsic value and worth.

2. Not Simply as a Means: Treating someone merely as a "means" involves using them
solely for your own purposes or benefits, without regard for their own goals or needs.

3. Dual Role: The key here is the dual role of treating humanity. You should always
recognize and respect the inherent value of individuals (treating them as ends) while also
understanding that they can play roles that contribute to your own goals (treating them as
means).

ETHICAL MUTUAL MORAL

INTERACTIONS RESPECT INTEGRITY
To understand this we need to know what it is to treat a person as a means or as an end. According
to Kant, each of our acts reflects one or more maxims. The maxim of the act is the principle on
which one sees oneself as acting. A maxim expresses a person's policy, or if he or she has no settled
policy, the principle underlying the particular intention or decision on which he or she acts.
1. Treating Humanity as an End:
When you treat someone as an "end," you recognize their intrinsic value and worth.

2. Not Simply as a Means: Treating someone merely as a "means" involves using them solely for your own
purposes or benefits, without regard for their own goals or needs.

3. Dual Role: The key here is the dual role of treating humanity. You should always recognize and respect
the inherent value of individuals (treating them as ends) while also understanding that they can play roles
that contribute to your own goals (treating them as means).
 LET’S DIFFERENTIATE “INTENTIONS” AND
“MAXIMS”
An "intention" is what a person aims to achieve
with their action, while a "maxim" is the broader
principle or guideline that informs this intention.

You can generally turn an intention into a maxim

by removing specific details such as the particular
Because maxims can be seen as generalized time, place, or people involved.
versions of intentions (where specific details are
stripped away), for practical purposes, the terms
"intention" and "maxim" can be used
interchangeably.

“Whenever we act intentionally, we have at least one maxim and can, if we reflect, state what it is.”
 “We should look at our maxims and not at how
much misery or happiness the act is likely to
produce, and whether it does better at increasing
happiness than other available acts. We just have
to check that the act we have in mind will not use
anyone as a mere means, and, if possible, that it
will treat other persons as ends in themselves.”
IMPERATIVE IS
CATEGORICAL
- Immanuel Kant
 Imperative is Categorical
The imperative of morality

Concerned not with the material of the action and it's anticipated result, but with it's form and .
with the principle from which the action itself results
"How all these imperatives possible?"
By contrast, "How is the imperative of
morality possible?"
 Imperative is Categorical
Unlike the hypothetical Imperative that needs conditons, categorical imperative is easy to know
right away what it contains. For since this imperative contains, besides the law, on necessity
that the maxim conform to this law, while the law, as we have seen, contains no condition
limiting it.

"Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time
will that it should become a universal law."
We shall now enumerate some duties.
1. A man feels sick of life as the result of a
mounting series of misfortunes that has 2. Another finds himself driven by need to
reduced him to hopelessness, but he still borrow money. He knows very well that he will
possesses enough of his reason to ask himself
not be able to pay it back, but he sees too that
whether it would not be contrary to his duty to
nobody will lend him anything unless he firmly
himself to take his own life. Now he tests
promises to pay it back within a fixed time. He
whether the maxim of his action could really
wants to make such a promise, but he still has
become a universal law of nature.
enough conscience to ask himself,
His maxim, however, is: "I make it my principle
out of self-love to shorten my life if its "Isn't it impermissible and contrary to duty to
continuance threatens more evil than it get out of one's difficulties this way?"
promises advantage."
3. A third finds in himself a talent that, with a
certain amount of cultivation, could make him
4. A fourth man, who is himself flourishing but
a useful man for all sorts of purposes. But he
sees others who have to struggle with great
sees himself in comfortable circumstances, and
hardships (and whom he could easily help)
he prefers to give himself up to pleasure
thinks to himself: "What do I care? Let every
rather than to bother about increasing and
one be as happy as Heaven intends or as he can
improving his fortunate natural aptitudes.
make himself; I won't deprive him of anything;
I won't even envy him; but I don't feel like
Yet he asks himself further "Does my maxim
contributing anything to his well-being or to
of neglecting my natural gifts, besides
helping him in his distress!"
agreeing with my taste for amusement, agree
also with what is called duty?"
The practical imperative will therefore be the
following:
Act in such a way that you treat humanity,
whether in your own person or in any other
person, always at the same time as an end, never
merely as a means. We will now see whether this
can be carried out in practice.
Let us keep to our previous examples.

First, the man who contemplates suicide will ask himself whether his action
could be compatible with the Idea of humanity as an end in itself.

Secondly, the man who has in mind making a false promise to others will
see at once that he is intending to make use of another person merely as a
means

Thirdly, it is not enough that an action not conflict with humanity in our own
person as an end in itself: it must also harmonize with this end.

Fourthly, the natural end that all human beings seek is their own perfect
happiness.
USING PERSONS
AS MERE MEANS
To use someone as a mere means is to involve them in a
scheme of action to which they could not in principle of
consent. Kant does not say that there is anything wrong about
using someone as a means. Evidently we have to do so in any
cooperative scheme of action.
 Using someone as a means:

Means End

Using someone as a mere means:

Means End
Deception

You lie or make a false promise to deceive someone.

Coercion

You threaten someone to force them into doing something.

 Ethical Implication of Deception
Respect for Individuals:
Treat people as ends in themselves, not merely as tools for personal gain.
Deception violates this respect by using others for one's own benefit.
Universalizability:
Actions should be guided by principles that could be universal laws.
If everyone lied, trust would break down, leading to chaos
Autonomy and Informed Consent:
People have the right to make informed decisions.
Deception undermines their ability to choose based on accurate information.
THANK YOU!