Kantian Approaches to Famine Problems o ONeills Focus What implications does the Humanity Formula have for famine

e relief? If we are to act on maxims that do not use others as mere means, will this requirement impact our actions and policies regarding famine? What maxims guide our actions related to famine relief? Maxim: Try to reduce the risk or severity of poverty related problems Does not include a why to her maxim; can easily be added with the simple because poverty related problems are bad can be reflected in a variety of different actions: a gift of money, political lobbying for aid, political lobbying against aid (indiscriminate food aid damages as areas agricultural economy and do not lead to self-sustaining development) Case Study o Grain dealer in a Third World village threatens to refuse an indispensible loan unless he is sold the current crop at a pitifully low price o The farmer is used as a mere means because he cannot genuinely consent to and offer he cant refuse o Treating Others as Ends To treat someone as an end requires actions that promote anothers capacities for autonomous action We are finite rational beings and we depend on each other To help others is a way to help them exercise their autonomy We have a duty to help and support others in achieving their aims Hunger, poverty, and powerlessness undercut the possibility of autonomous action We have a duty to foster and secure others capacities for autonomous action Therefore, we should do what we can to avert, reduce, and remedy hunger, poverty, and powerlessness o Perfect Duties: duties that people must constantly be doing throughout their daily lives; not to kill oneself or others; these always apply o Imperfect Duties: not required of people at all times, but still duties; can choose how to fulfill them; contributing to charity; these sometimes apply Thomson Presentation o Many would say killing is worse than letting die Alfred poisons wife versus Bert not giving his wife an antidote after she poisoned herself Alfred is worse o Mrs. Foot Positive duties are things such as saving a life Negative duties are things such as refraining from killing Example: Frank is a passenger in the trolley and the driver passed out

Frank is faced with killing one person or letting five die Frank cannot flip the switch o Thomson also considers who has more claim on life Say five people on tracks were workers and knew of the dangers of the job while the one person was guaranteed safety on the tracks The one person has more claim on life o Changing outcomes You can manipulate things to change outcomes, but not people Makes it okay to flip the switch of the trolley but not push a fat man off a bridge to stop it in its tracks Differs from utilitarianism because it takes into account claim and circumstance of a situation, not just what creates the most happiness overall o Concerns Grey area about what constitutes the values/validity of a claim very subject to judgment Only difference between driver and Frank is title Driver is in a position of killing or killing; and therefore should chose the lesser of two evils by flipping the switch Frank is in a position of killing or let die and therefore lets 5 people die; why is his circumstance difference just because of his title? Responsibility is an issue here Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem o Is killing worse than letting die? Intuition: yes Charles Transplant surgeon who wants to kill a healthy specimen to transplant the heart in a sick person David Transplant surgeon who wants to kill one healthy person to save five other patients needed a transplant Principle: Killing is worse than letting die; applications in abortion, euthanasia, distribution of scarce medical resources Counterexample Alfred hates his wife and deliberately poisons her Bert hates his wife and when she inadvertently poisons herself he does not provide the antidote despite having it Intuition: What Bert does is as bad as what Alfred does Conclusion: Killing is not worse than letting die Bad Argument o Alfreda knows that if she cuts off Alfreds head, he will die o Bertha knows that if she punches Bert in the nose, he will die

Alfreda wants Alfred to die, so she cuts off his head Bertha wants Bert to dies, so she punches his nose What Bertha did is as bad as what Alfreda did Therefore, cutting off someones head isnt worse than punching someones nose o The Fallacy Draws too general a conclusion from a specific instance Makes a claim about every pair of acts of a specific type; all nose punchings and all decapitations However, the argument only established the equivalence in a specific case Edward and the Trolley Edward is the driver of the trolley; can turn the switch to kill one person rather than killing five Why may the driver (Edward) turn the trolley is David (surgeon) may not cut up his healthy specimen? Types of Duties o Foots Solution Two Types of Duty Negative duties not to kill Positive duties to save a life If David does nothing, he violates a positive duty If David cuts up his healthy specimen, he violates a negative duty The negative duty to not kill one person is more stringent than the positive duty to save five o Difference between trolley and surgeon Foot says, Edward kills whether or not he turns; conflict is between two negative duties If Edward did nothing, he kills five people If a driver of a trolley drives right into five people, he kills them, even if it is because his breaks have fail Thomson disagrees; Franks conflict is between a positive and negative duty, so it should follow that Frank may no more turn the trolley than David may cut up his specimen Frank is a passenger on a trolley whose driver has just died of the shock. On the track ahead are five people. Frank can turn the trolley, killing the one; or he can refrain from turning the trolley, letting the five die Because Frank is not the driver, his choice it between killing the one and letting five die; therefor Thomson feels that he cannot flip the switch Problem: If Edward may turn the trolley, so may Frank Why can Edward and Frank turn the trolleys if David cannot cut up his specimen? o o o o

o Answer Davids healthy specimen has more of a claim to those parts than the five do It is just as if one owns the health pebble Claim is weaker than right Claim examples o Doesnt belong to one; wasnt promised to one; the one wasnt made ill by the five; the one hasnt already swallowed it and we may not cut him open A person is not something unowned, to be knocked about in order to bring about a better distribution of something else. Korsgaard, Kant, and Lying o Kant endorses two claims One must never under any circumstances or for any purpose tell a lie If one does tell a lie, one is responsible for all the consequences that ensue, even if they were completely unforeseeable o Unsympathetic Take this conclusion to show Kants ethics is implausible o Sympathetic reading Argue that Kant mistook the implications of his own theory By accurately testing the maxim on which the liar acts, Kants conclusion can be blocked by his own procedure A maxim that cannot be conceived as a universal law without contradiction is in violation of a perfect duty A maxim that can be conceived but cannot be willed as a universal law without contradiction is in violation of an imperfect duty Recall that imperfect duties do not tell us what or how much we should do to satisfy them Does lying violate a perfect or imperfect duty? o Lying and the Formula of Humanity When we apply the formula of humanity; all lies seem impermissible; a bad result To treat someone as a means is to prevent them from assenting to a way of acting; ex. coercion or deception Lying is a way of not treating people as an ends o Rationality, Duty, and Respect To treat another with respect is to treat him as if he were using his reason well We are forbidden to take attitudes towards a person which involve regarding them as not in control of themselves, as not using their reason Review of Kant o Act from duty vs. act in accordance with duty o Non-consequentialist (focus on intention) o Categorical vs. Hypothetical Imperatives

o o o o

o o

Kant on Happiness An end at which we all aim However, rationality can issue no imperative if the end is indeterminate, and happiness is an indeterminate end Whoever will the end of happiness does not thereby will the same means Provides a decision procedure for moral reasoning Contradiction in conception + will Universal Law vs. Humanity as Ends The morality of our actions should depend on what is within our control Virtues of Kants View Not as demanding as consequentialist (space for supererogatory acts) Doesnt permit seemingly immoral acts so long as we maximize the good Doesnt violate human rights Views humans as creatures of worth and respect and as ends in themselves Paradox of Deontology Deontological requirements forbid us from certain kinds of acts But what if in doing that act reduced the number of occurrences of that type of act? Recall Jim, Pedro, and the natives (kill one to save 19) If the value is high enough to merit a deontological requirement, why isnt the value so important that we should violate it once to better protect the relevant value? Possible Conflicts Between Rules? If such conflicts occur, do they disprove the existence of absolute moral rules? Reason vs. Passion Reason is, and ought to be, a slave to passions. Kant says we act for the moral law on the basis of reason Hume: Reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will My desires lead me to value certain ends or goals; and then my reason can tell me how to achieve those ends or goals. Reason only tells us how to achieve certain aims, given that we want to achieve those aims The source of morality is our desires or our passions Hume says reason is used merely to obtain our own (hypothetical) ends