2 QUESTIONS:

1. How can duty and autonomy go together?

o Acting out of duty is acting on a moral law that you impose upon yourself Im the
author of that law and Im subordinated myself to that law acting freely and
autonomously is the same
o BUT How many moral laws are there?
Kant believes that if we choose freely out of our all consciousness, we are
guaranteed to come up with 1 universal moral law
Pure reason the reason that governs my will when I will the moral law is the
same reason that operates when you choose the moral law for yourself and
thats why it is possible to act autonomously and choose for ourselves and
for all of us to wind up having the same moral law
2. How is the categorical imperative possible? How is morality possible?
o We need to make a distinction between 2 stand points from which we can make
sense of our experience
o As an object of experience, I belong to the sensible world, there my actions are
determined by the laws of nature
o As a subject of experience, I inhabit an intelligible world, being independent of the
laws of nature, I am capable of autonomy Only from this 2nd standpoint can I
regard myself as free
o If I were wholly an imperical being and only subject to my senses (pain, hunger, etc)
as the utilitarians assume, we wouldnt be capable of reason
o When we thing of ourselves as free, we transfer ourselves into the intelligible world
as members and recognize the autonomy of the will
Kant admits that we arent only rational beings, we dont only inhabit intelligible world
because if we did, then all of our actions would variably accord with the autonomy of the will
o But precisely because we inhabit 2 standpoints, there is always potentially a gap
between we do and what we ought to do
Morality is not empirical thats why no science can prove moral truth
CASE OF THE MURDERER AT THE DOOR
o Kant says that lying is wrong. It is in odds with categoral imperative
o French Philiosopher responding said that absolute prohibition on lying is wrong it
cant be right
o Kant says that you should tell the truth
o Kant stuck by his principle that lying even to the murderer at the door is wrong.
Reason of Kant: Once you start taking consequences into account as an
exception to categorical imperative, you defeat the point
Defense of speaker of Kant: Is there a way you could avoid telling a lie
without selling out your friends?
Students said: I dont know , tells his friends to escape

Is there a moral difference between an OUTRIGHT LIE and a

MISLEADING TRUTH?
o Kant says that there is a world of difference
o Kant X endorse a Kant, but he can endorse a misleading
truth
o Suppose someone gives you a tie but you hate it, what do
you say?
White lie its beautiful (X admissible)
Misleading truth Ive never seen a tie like that
before. Thank you (pwede)
Bill Clinton case denials of the affair
o I did not have sexual relations with that woman

Unlike a falsehood/lie, a misleading truth pays a certain

homage/respect to duty
There is some kind of respect for the dignity of the moral law in being
careful in the evasion of the duty to not lie
Kant says that just laws arise from a certain kind of contract which is exceptional because it is
not an actual contract that happens when people come together and try to figure out what the
consti is
The contract that generate justice is what he calls an IDEA OF REASON
A contract that generates principles of right is merely an idea of reason, but it has undoubted
practical reality, because it can oblige every legislator to frame his laws in such a way that
they could have been produced by the united will of the whole nation
What is the moral force of a hypothetical contract? A contract that never happened?
JOHN RAWLS
o Theory of justice
o Parallel to Kant in 2 impt respects
Critique of utilitarianism
Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice than even the
welfare of society as a whole cannot override the rights secured by justice
are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests
o VEIL OF IGNORANCE
o Hypothetical contract
o What is the moral force of this kind of hypothetical agreement?
How do actual contracts bind/obligate me?
Consent-based autonomy
Benefit-based reciprocity
How do actual contract justify the terms that they produce?
They dont at least not on their own
X self sufficient moral instruments
It can always be asked is agreement fair
Example: We make a commercial agreement and I promised to pay
yoo 100$ if you can harvest and bring to me a 100 lobsters. We
make a deal. I eat the lobsters and sell them to my friends. But you
dont pay. Sellers says youre obligated. Buyer says why? Because
youre obligated. You BENEFITTED from my labor.
Contracts sometimes bind us in so far as they are instruments of
MUTUAL BENEFIT
2nd case: We make this deal. 100 dollars for 100 lobsters. 2 minutes
later. I call you back and say no more. Does the buyer still owe the
seller? Yes, because it somehow CHEAPENS THE OBLIGATIONS
OF CONTRACTS
o The fact that 2 people agree does not mean that the terms of the contract are fair
o Examples:
Car example
Toilet example
o Ideal of autonomy X realized because there is difference in the bargaining powers
o Ideal of reciprocity X realized because of difference in knowledge
o Way to think about morality is by ruling out the difference in power and knowledge
first
o Hypothetical contracts among equals is the only way to justice