According to Kant, there are no exceptions in ethics. Are there any moral absolutes that everyone should always follow or are ethics relative?
READ THIS…
Kant’s Duty Ethics
Perhaps the most influential nonconsequential theory was developed by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Tenets of this philospohy include:
The Good Will
Only the good will acts in accordance with rules, regardless of consequences.
Morality by Reasoning Alone
Though Kant believed in God and offered very compelling philosophical arguments for the existence of God, he believed that ethics should not be based on religion but could be determined with mathematical precision based on two principles:
Logical consistency
Universalizability
Kant thought that one could deduce moral absolutes, in accordance with the above, through the Categorical Imperative.
Categorical Imperative
An act is immoral if the maxim (rule to follow) cannot be universalized.
Kant thought that the CI only authorized absolute rules with no exceptions. Thiroux offers a “practical imperative” though Kant did not use the phrase. This says that one must never treat another as a means to an end. Individuals are “ends in themselves.”
Duty Rather Than Inclination
One should obey absolute rules out of a sense of duty, not inclination. Someone who is only inclined to be generous – rather than generous out of duty – is not fully moral.
Summary and Illustration
Absolute moral rules are established with certainty by reason and one should obey these rules out of a sense of duty. All persons are ends in themselves.
Weaknesses of Kant’s Duty Ethics
Conflicting duties – how to choose?
Sometimes it is impossible to ignore the outcomes of actions
Kant’s approach allows for no exceptions and this can result in negative consequences
Qualifying a rule versus making exceptions to it
One may object to exceptions to the rule but qualifying the rule may still be consistent with the Categorical Imperative
Duties versus inclinations
If duties and inclinations coincide, what is the difference morally?
Most would argue that it is better for someone to do something because they want to rather than because they have to
But Kant was highly distrustful of emotions and desires as a basis for morality
