Objections to Kant's Ethics - Part 1

Video Lecture for PHIL 242: Ethics for Engineers & Scientists, University of Nevada - Las Vegas, Fall 2020, Instructor: Phillip Honenberger.

[darkengine]

I'm actually in the first category. I'm of the firm belief that probable consequences are all that should ideally matter from a moral standpoint, but we have to deeply compromise and factor in a lot more for the simple fact that we can't practically expect people to even come close to being able to perfectly predict the consequences. So I strongly factor in intentions but only so far as the intentions themselves are subject to probable consequences (a bad intention is one that is likely to produce negative ones, even when they luckily don't), and also help us to determine whether the person is likely to repeat their actions or not.

For example, a drunk driver generally has good intentions. They generally just want to drive home without harming anyone. Yet their actions are weighted towards a high likelihood of very negative consequences. So I consider that grossly negligent regardless of their good intentions (they should have known better regardless), and something worth attempting to rehabilitate to prevent them from attempting it again.

Another from my standpoint is that what one person considers in accordance with what they want to be universal law could be wildly different from another person.

[adamrose]

Thanks for this! I am writing on the first stance, that consequences are important, because of this video. Taking philosophical ethics over at Fordham University.