Here are the four most important things I learned in Introduction to Ethics this semester, presented in rank order in a chart format:

II. Response to Ethical Theory Writing Prompt 2:

(a) Define and describe Kantian Duty Ethics, with reference to the Principle of Universalizability and the Principle of Humanity.

Kantian Duty Ethics, also known as deontology, is a moral theory developed by the philosopher Immanuel Kant that emphasizes duty, rules, and moral obligations as the foundation of ethical behavior. Unlike consequentialist theories that focus on outcomes, Kantian ethics asserts that the morality of an action is determined by whether it aligns with a moral law or duty, regardless of the consequences. The rightness or wrongness of an action is intrinsic to the action itself.  

At the heart of Kantian ethics are two key principles, derived from Kant’s Categorical Imperative:

The Principle of Universalizability states that we should act only according to a maxim (a subjective principle of action) whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. In simpler terms, before acting, we should ask ourselves: “Could I rationally will that everyone in a similar situation should act in the same way?” If the maxim cannot be universalized without contradiction (either a contradiction in conception, where the very act would become impossible if everyone tried to do it, or a contradiction in the will, where although conceivable, no rational person would will such a world), then the action is morally wrong. For example, the maxim “It is okay to make a false promise when it benefits me” cannot be universalized because if everyone made false promises, the very concept of a promise would become meaningless.

The Principle of Humanity (also known as the Formula of the End in Itself) states that we should act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. This principle emphasizes the inherent dignity and worth of every rational being. To treat someone merely as a means is to use them only to achieve your own goals without respecting their own goals, autonomy, and rationality. For instance, manipulating someone or deceiving them to get what you want treats them as a tool rather than as an individual with their own purposes. Treating someone as an end in themselves involves respecting their capacity for rational decision-making and their inherent value.  

(b) Do you find the theory plausible? Why or why not?

I find Kantian Duty Ethics to be a significantly plausible and valuable ethical theory, although it also presents certain challenges.

One of its strengths lies in its emphasis on moral consistency and universality. The Principle of Universalizability provides a strong framework for ensuring that our moral principles are fair and apply equally to everyone in relevantly similar situations. This helps to avoid arbitrariness and promotes a sense of justice. The focus on duty also provides a clear and often unwavering guide for action, which can be particularly helpful in situations where emotions or potential consequences might cloud judgment.

Furthermore, the Principle of Humanity resonates deeply with the intuitive sense that human beings possess intrinsic worth and dignity. It provides a powerful moral basis for respecting individual rights and autonomy, and for condemning actions like slavery, exploitation, and manipulation. This principle underscores the importance of treating others as rational agents with their own goals and values.