Questions for Chapters 9 and 10
Chapter 9 – Are There Absolute Moral Rules?
1. How is a hypothetical imperative different from a categorical one?
2. Why are hypothetical imperatives optional but categorical ones mandatory?
3. What is the main principle (the Categorical Imperative) which guides all moral obligations?
4. Explain how the Categorical Imperative works. (Hint: consider the case of repayment of debt).
5. Why does Kant think that even in the case of the Inquiring Murderer, we should not lie?
6. How could a critic of Kant respond to this analysis? (Hint: it involves manipulating the proposed maxim of action to allow for exceptions.)
7. Why does the possibility of conflicting moral rules pose a problem for Kant?
8. What does JR think is the most attractive element in Kant’s philosophy?
Chapter 10 – Kant and Respect for Persons
1. Humans are fundamentally different from things. What is this difference? Why are mere things ‘means’ and why are we intrinsically ‘ends’?
2. Since we are rational beings and our rationality must always be respected, what moral rules does this entail?
3. Suppose that you needed money from a friend for a good cause but couldn’t pay it back. Explain how it would be possible to get the money from him or her while still treating him or her as an end.
4. Kant thought that even if it was the last thing a society did, it should execute all of its murderers. What reasons does he give for this view?
5. Why does Kant think that executing a murderer is treating that person with respect and dignity?
6. Why does Kant think that the criminal asks for punishment?
Comment Questions
1. Rachels has pointed out that (at least in theory), prisons today have embraced the utilitarian view that we should rehabilitate prisoners and not punish them. Is this a good idea (in theory at least)? [Note: Avoid the temptation of falling off topic and entering into debates that aren’t philosophical here – e.g. whether or not the programs really do work. Stick to the underlying theory!]
2. Most people think that in the case of the Inquiring Murderer, Kant is wrong in his conclusions. If you agree, where in his reasoning does Kant go wrong? What would Kant’s response be? If you disagree, provide (and then critique) a position which attacks Kant.