John Locke and the libertarian philosophers he inspired held that justice and morality are a matter of respecting the fundamental rights that all individuals hold in common – life, liberty, and property (including the property of one's self). Libertarians such as Milton Friedman argue these principles are incompatible with the government placing restrictions on the free market. But what happens when the market itself brings our rights into conflict with one another? In this unit, we examine several case studies in which individual rights are disputed, and we consider whether these cases provide sufficient reason to doubt the libertarian position.
Are individual rights enough to determine how to answer moral questions and how to propose a just society? Perhaps we need a more substantive philosophical approach to answer some of our moral and political questions. This is the position of Immanuel Kant, who suggests that we have certain moral obligations because we are human beings with moral reasoning capabilities. These capabilities lead to certain duties which we need to consider. We call Kant’s philosophy deontological, which means it is rooted in duty.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 10 hours.
Watch this video starting at 1:52, which gives an argument regarding the concept of individual consent as it relates to military conscription and giving up aspects of one's own liberties in service to one's country.
In this video, Erika Fuchs explains the process of surrogacy and the argument that from a free market perspective these relationships are ethical with proper legal representation and the involvment of agencies.
Read this description of the Baby M case from the New Jersey Supreme Court.
In this video Talbot discusses the role of emotions and reason in determining ethical decisions. The use of reason and rule following is related to the deontological ethics of Kant. Acting purely from duty is emphasized, and the idea that having good intentions is having a good will.
In this video on Kant's ethics, the ideal life is based on using reason to determine what one's duty is in any given context. Always acting from duty means following specific rules that are universal, that apply to anyone in a similar situation, and that are aligned with ceteris parabis rules in law. If one follows these rules and always acts from duty, then one is a Good Will, who always intends to do the right thing, with the right intentions and motivations.
Read the Second Section from Immanuel Kant's Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant says five things are clear:
Do these claims seem as clear and correct to you as they do to Kant? What is Kant referring to in his concept of the categorial imperative?
Kant gives a second version of the categorical imperative which he called the practical imperative. Interpreters sometimes call it the imperative of dignity or of human dignity. Can you describe that version of the categorical imperative?
Kant says these two versions of the categorical imperative ultimately say the same thing. Why do you think he believes this?
Unlike our study of hypothetical examples in this course, Kant believes that morality is not something that can be derived from examples. What he wants is to find universal principles of morality that spring wholly from reason and not from experience. This is why he calls his system metaphysics of morals. In the second section, Kant argues forcefully against utilitarian (or popular) moral theories, and he puts forward his own, absolutely binding moral principle: the categorical imperative.
In Kant's ethical theory, a categorical imperative is a universal command, a principle that should be followed by anyone in any situation. If a command like "always tell the truth" can be chosen and represents a moral rule we all should follow, then it has the status of a categorical imperative, and is therefore a duty. Kant's examples in this section are meant to show that actions can only be considered truly moral if they are motivated by the duty to follow this imperative.
What does Kant mean by autonomy and heteronomy? Kant gives a third version of the categorical imperative in this section. What is this version? Here, Kant is concerned here that our principles of morality must come from ourselves and from our own rationality. However, he thinks of our rationality in universal terms, not as our own individual persuasion or opinion. Rationality and rational morality is always an objective science for Kant.
In the third section, Kant presents his view of what human freedom consists in, namely, following our rational principles rather than being guided by our appetite for please and our desire to avoid pain. Because Kant has based both freedom and morality on rationality, this means that to be free is to be moral. Or, in other words, to be free is to be bound by our duty to ourselves.
This video starting at 7:45 describes a variety of examples of lying and the problematic effects of lying within the military.
Post and respond to the following topics on the course discussion board, and respond to other students' posts.
Take this assessment to see how well you understood this unit.