Second formulation of the moral law

— The objective end given through reason must be equally valid for all rational beings (427).

— The worth of ends effected by a rational being is relative to what that rati0nal being wants (427).

— Hence no such end is an objective end given through reason (427).

— ground of practical law ßà its existence has absolute worth (428)

— A rational being alone has absolute worth (428).

— Hence FH: Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in that of another, always at the same time as end and never merely as means. (429)

— Humanity = that predisposition of human beings through which they have the rational capacities to set ends, use means to them, and organize them into a whole (happiness) (p. 47, n. 63)

— NB: ‘never merely as means’, equivalent to universalizability

1. Self-preservation (429)

— Kant’s argument

— Can the action of suicide subsist with the idea of humanity as an end in itself?

— To destroy oneself in order to flee from a burdensome condition is to use a person (oneself) merely as a means.

— Hence I cannot dispose of the human being in my own person so as to maim, corrupt or kill him.

— Questions about it

1. Why does Kant think that to destroy oneself to flee from a burdensome condition is to fail to use the humanity in oneself as an end? (What does “using humanity as an end” mean here?)

2. Does his argument imply that suicide is always immoral? Why, or why not?

3. Why does the conclusion talk about maiming and corrupting?

2. No false promises (429-430)

— Kant’s argument

— The one I want to use by making a false promise cannot possibly be in harmony with my way of behaving.

— So the one I want to use cannot contain in himself the end of my action.

— So to make a lying promise to another is to use him merely as a means.

— By similar reasoning, attacks on the freedom or property of others treat them merely as a means.

— Questions about it

1. What assumption enables Kant to draw each inference?

2. What do these assumptions tell us about what Kant’s conception of using someone merely as a means?

3. Does Kant’s argument imply that lying is always wrong?

4. Why does Kant talk about attacks on others’ freedom or property?

3. Self-cultivation (430)

— Kant’s argument

— One’s actions must not merely be compatible with humanity as an end in itself but must further it.

— Human predispositions to greater perfection are ends of nature with regard to the humanity in our subject.

— Hence we have a duty to develop our predispositions to greater perfection.

— Questions about it

1. Why does Kant think that using humanity as an end implies furthering this humanity?

2. What scope does Kant’s argument allow for qualification of the duty of self-cultivation or its influence by inclination?

4. Beneficence (430)

— Kant’s argument

— If I am to regard the subject as an end in itself, its ends must as far as possible be my ends as well.

— To contribute nothing to others’ happiness is to lack a positive agreement with humanity as an end in itself.

— Hence one must aspire as much as one can to further the ends of others.

— Questions about it

1. What conception of using humanity as an end is implicit in Kant’s requirement of a positive agreement with humanity as an end in itself?

2. What scope does Kant’s argument allow for qualification of the duty of beneficence or its influence by inclination?

Questions about FH

1. What does Kant mean by using humanity in someone’s person as a means?
2. What does he mean by using humanity in someone’s person as an end?
3. How can one determine that someone has “humanity”?
4. What about humans who are not rational beings?
5. Why does Kant think that FH is equivalent to FUL and FN? Is he right to think so?
6. Give an example of everyday moral thinking that corresponds to FH.
7. Give an example of everyday moral thinking that seems not to be covered by FH.

Third formulation of the moral law

— arises from the second formulation (431)

— grounded on the idea of “the will of every rational being as a will giving universal law” (FA, 431)

— a principle of the “autonomy” (self-legislation) of the will (431)

— realm of ends = an ideal combination of rational beings through common objective laws

— FRE: Act only so that the will could through its maxim at the same time consider itself as universally legislative (434).

— NB: ‘could’, legislative for an ideal realm (not for a state)

Dignity and price (434-436)

— to have a price = to be capable of having something equivalent put in its place

— to have a dignity = to have inner worth with no equivalent substitute

— Morality alone has dignity.

— Why? Because virtue gets its possessor a share in the universal legislation, and so possible membership in the realm of ends.

— Hence autonomy is the ground of the dignity of every rational nature.

— Issue: Is Kant’s argument that rational beings have intrinsic worth circular?

Maxims and formulas (436)

The three formulas

— Kant: one principle not three.

— Are the formulas equivalent? Or do they differ in that:

— some acts are ruled out by universalizability but allowed by respect for autonomy?

— some acts are ruled out by respect for autonomy but allowed by universalizability?

— some acts are ruled out by universalizability but allowed by legislation for a realm of ends?

— some acts are ruled out by legislation for a realm of ends but allowed by universalizability?

— some acts are ruled out by respect for autonomy but allowed by legislation for a realm of ends?

— some acts are ruled out by legislation for a realm of ends but allowed by respect for autonomy ?

Heteronomous principles

— heteronomy à morality conditioned on something else à merely hypothetical imperative (441-442)

— empirical principles (happiness) unsuited

— One’s own happiness is an incentive that undermines morality and is an incentive to vice (442).

— Moral feeling is infinitely variable and not a sound basis for judgment (442).

— rational principles at least appeal to pure reason

— Perfection as an end is indeterminate. Its determination tends to covertly presuppose morality (443).

— Perfection as a cause either covertly imports morality into God or founds morality on something opposed to morality.

— NB: heteronomy a source of principles not a principle or way of acting, not all heteronomous principles are selfish

Review of second section

— Reasons for basing morality on reason rather than experience

— Concept of a rational being

— Commands and imperatives: types

— How imperatives are possible

— First formula of the moral law (FUL, FLN)

— Its application to 4 examples (4 types of duties)

— 2 ways a maxim can fail the test of FLN

— Second formula of the moral law (FH)

— Its application to the same 4 examples

— Third formula of the moral law (FA, FRE): dignity vs. price

— Relation of the 3 formulas to our maxims

— Inadequacies of heteronomous principles of morality

Transition to Section 3

— What morality is, if it exists, has been shown (445).

— That it exists has not been shown (444).

— We need to move from the metaphysics of morals to a critique of pure practical reason (445).

Next

Third section: transition to the critique of pure practical reason (Ak 4:4446-463)

Reflection due by midnight Sunday, Oct. 4

Essay proposal due in class Oct. 6

Outline

— Freedom as the explanation of autonomy

— Freedom of the will as a presupposition

— Our interest in being moral

— How a categorical imperative is possible

— The limit of practical philosophy