Pick one of following topics and write a 5-8 page paper fulfilling the tasks assigned.

Your paper is due in the beginning of class on Wednesday, April 18th.

Topics:

1. In Section I of Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant claims that to be morally good (as opposed to just morally correct) an action must be an expression of a good will, and to be an expression of a good will an action must be done from duty. What is involved in acting from duty; how exactly is duty a factor? Using your own examples, contrast this with another way duty can be a factor. When Kant identifies expressing a good will with acting from duty, he is concerned to distinguish this from the other possible sources of action. Give your own examples illustrating the various sources of action. Kant claims that actions based on other sources have no moral worth. Explain how an action's having moral worth is not just a matter of what maxim one acts on. To do this, consider the case of acting on the maxim "I will tell the truth in order to be honest." Why is it that acting on this maxim out of direct concern for being honest does not have moral worth, even though the principle "Be honest!" expresses a requirement of morality? (The article by Nelson might help here.) There is supposedly only one principle which determines the kind of motive necessary to give an action moral worth--the Categorical Imperative: (CI) "Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Give the details of how an act of truth-telling done on the basis of CI differs from one done on the basis of direct concern for honesty. Why is the one morally praiseworthy when the other is not? Considering again the various sources of action, discuss how for certain kinds of cases Kant's claim that the action lacks moral worth seems plausible, but for others it seems implausible. One possible objection based on this assessment is the claim that Kant makes morality "cold-blooded". Explain this objection. Give an example that makes this seem particularly problematic. What (if anything) can Kant say in reply to defend his view? Do you think the sorts of issues raised in the above considerations make Kant's view unacceptable? Why or why not?

2. In Section II of Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant explains the capacity of will as practical reason--the ability to cause actions according to principles the agent represents to himself. For rational beings with the kind of will we have--one which does not automatically will in accord with reason--principles thought of as applying to the will objectively as a matter of rationality are represented in the form of imperatives. Kant draws a distinction between two kinds of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical. Explain the difference between these kinds of imperatives (give examples), how the former amount to principles of rationality, and the special way that the latter are supposed to be connected to rationality (the article by Foot might help here). Kant holds that the imperatives of morality must be categorical. Explain his reasons for thinking that there is a single categorical imperative that serves as the ultimate moral law. Briefly, what is it about moral actions on his view that makes it the case that following the Categorical Imperative (CI) "Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" will make one's actions moral? Next, show how CI distinguishes immoral actions from moral ones by explaining how it works in an instance (an example of your own) that gets ruled immoral.

Now consider a problem with determining morality with CI illustrated by the following example. Imagine that Biff stands to inherit millions of dollars when his mother dies, and he will get the money so long as he does nothing immoral. Biff strangles his mother, acting on the maxim "Use your own hands to make money." What argument could Biff give to the effect that he should inherit the money by considering how CI would assess this case? Is there anything Kant could say to defend his view with regard to how it would handle this example? (Think about the general point of Korsgaard's article). What general problem with applying CI (in particular with what gets tested) does this case illustrate? Do you think this problem undermines the view, or is there some way to respond to it? Support your assessment.