Homework 9 (Due 8/17 by 5:00 PM) (Four points)

First, an apology. I realize that posting this on Friday puts a big burden on those of you taking the class to try to do it in a much smaller time frame than normal. For that, I'm very sorry. It's only my own negligence to blame. As with all assignments, this is, of course, optional and meant to help you prepare for the material. I'll try not to let this happen again.

Part 1: Kantianism
Kantianism is a deontological theory credited to German philosopher Immanuel Kant. In Kant’s theory, consequences do not matter because the world is dirty and imperfect and difficult to manage, although he probably wouldn’t say it that way. Instead, morality comes from our ability to reason because only reason is pure and untainted. Using our reason we can discern a universal principle of ethics and by applying this perfect idea into the world we can know what to do at any moment. The thing that makes an act good is the fact that we do it because it is derived from this universal principle, not because we want to do it. Only in doing the opposite of what we want can we do anything good. There, of course, will be times where we happen to want to do the thing which is actually right, but our carnal desires in such a situation corrupt the virtue of the act and make it amoral (having no moral value at all) even though it is still the best thing to do.

Every act is a representative of some (perhaps more than one) principle. The idea is to take the perfect moral principle and then only perform acts which are representatives of that principle. In Kantianism, the intention is everything. No matter what actually happens, every act is either good or bad to the extent that a person did it intentionally as an application of the universal principle contrary to his own desires. The universal principle, which Kant called a “categorical imperative,” comes in two formulations.

1. “Do only those things which you can at the same time will that everyone else would do in a similar situation.” This is the principle of universality which says that we should only follow rules which we would also want everyone else to follow. For instance, you shouldn’t lie because even liars prefer people to tell the truth. In fact, lying is incoherent to Kant since lying actually requires that most people will tell the truth. If everyone lied, then no one would take anyone else’s speech seriously, and lying would lose it’s power.

2. “Treat other people as ends and not as means only.” In ordinary language, “Don’t use people.” They are people too, and their lives are not just tools to be used for our own ends. We must respect their wishes too. Many people have likened this second version to the Golden Rule which says, “Do unto other people as you would want them to do unto you.”

This theory, like Utilitarianism, carries an important consideration for the wants and lives of other people. Since we must universalize anything, the best way to keep this principle before us is to remember that other people also have a will, and they matter. When you lie to someone, you are treating him as if his desire to know the truth does not matter, and you are violating the prescription to respect other people as ends not as means only.

1-6. Answer the questions from above.
7. How does this theory deal with moral dilemmas caused by conflict between principles or behavior categories?
8. We tend to think of a person who naturally wants to do good as a good person. Does Kant agree?

Part 2: Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory is a deontological theory which has been formulated over time by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and (in it’s modern form) John Rawls. Social Contract Theory begins with two basic concepts. Each human is rational and self-interested, and our promises are binding on us. Because we are rational, we recognize that it is better to live in a society with all the benefits and protections that society brings us than to live on our own in the wild struggling for survival and food with our teeth and nails every day. When an outsider comes to live in a new society, he generally must both demonstrate a basic understanding of the ideas and beliefs of that society and also give his formal pledge that he will live in accordance with the rules and ideal of it. Thus, a new citizen sees the benefit of entering society, and he formally promises to live by the rules of that society. Because of this promise, we have every reason to expect him to do so and feel perfectly justified in holding him accountable if he does not. He has made a “social contract” with the rest of the citizens of that society.

Most people, however, are simply born into a society and they never have to demonstrate such knowledge or give any such formal pledge. Yet, at a certain rather vague point in each person’s life we simply assume that the person has tacitly given his word to behave properly as a citizen just as the naturalized citizen does overtly. If he does not intend to have this assumed about him, he should leave the society. Since he stays, we assume he agrees to the contract as well. If he does not agree, at the very least he owes some measure of obedience back to the society which raised and nurtured him all this time, even if he didn’t ask for it.

Thus all people are thought to be part of this social contract of proper behavior. In essence, the points of this contract are all the rules which a rational, self-interested person would agree to obey in order to gain the benefits of society in return. For example, in the “state of nature” outside of society, one’s life is constantly at risk from all manner of things. In order to gain the security of safe living, a rational person would promise to not kill his fellow citizens in order for a similar promise from them and also the understanding that they would commonly defend each other against foreign aggressors. Thus, it is immoral to kill because people would presumably not let you in their society unless you promised not to do so. Anything which a rational, self-interested person can be assumed to have agreed to in the state of nature as a price of admission into society is part of the moral code of that society. In order to get the protections of life, liberty, and property, we would all agree to give up some freedom so that other people could also enjoy an equal level of personal freedom. In essence, morality is the minimum admission price of anyone wanting to enter civilization and enjoy the benefits of leaving the unpleasant state of nature.

1-6. Answer the questions from above.
7. What is it that makes a real contract binding on someone?