Discuss how moral theory needs to make concessions for the limited capacities of human nature.

We just considered how moral theory needs to make concessions for the limited capacities of human nature, and this concern might apply to Kant’s consistency tests too, but first we need to describe how the tests work and what they are used to show about how duties are categorized.5. Conclusion: Recap your summary, discuss any overall impact the material from this unit has had on you, and indicate any changes you want to make in your learning strategies going forward.(topics)9 The two paradoxes of the extreme view in utility theory and moral theory making concessions to human natureSmart points out what I would describe as two paradoxes of the extreme view. The first is Sidgwick’s observation that it is sometimes expedient (read: right thing to do) to praise an inexpedient act, and it sometimes inexpedient to praise an expedient act. The second is that in some cases to advance the extremist goals (of doing the right thing in the particular situation you are in) you would do best not to use the extreme theory but use rules of thumb instead — this is assuming these rules aren’t part of the theory of course. I think both of these paradoxes result from particularities or limitations of human nature. It would be interesting to consider if there are any similar concessions that apply to Kantian ethics or virtue theory. You would think with Kant’s declaration that moral theory is apriori and non-empirical there wouldn’t be any concessions to human weakness or foibles, although he does say the moral law comes to us in the form of a command/imperative because of our flawed nature, and his theory does have to deal with competing non-moral motives and opacity in self-knowledge. Virtue theory on the other hand is very much disposed to catering to human nature. After all it is at bottom a theory of human flourishing of one kind or another (although this is somewhat modified in the case of a theological version of virtue theory). Also it is recognized by Aristotle that part of moral theory has to incorporate the fact that we are creatures of habit, we are capable of forming habit long before we reach the age of reason, and part of what needs to be controlled for morality seems to require habit for that control.10 Consistency in Kantian ethics and the two classes of dutiesKant distinguishes between strict and meritorious duties. This is also known as narrow/wide, justice/charity, and negative/positive. The distinction is reflected in the kind of test the categorical imperative provides when applied to a conflicting maxim. The strict duties are indicated by conceptual inconsistencies and the meritorious ones by volitional inconsistencies, to use O’Neill’s labels. Kant divides duty further into self-regarding and other-regarding. This raises the question whether the other moral approaches make distinctions of this kind. You do have intellectual and moral virtues in Aristotle’s ethics. As we mentioned in 6, there is just one duty in utility theory. The ancient virtue theorists favored four “cardinal” virtues: justice, wisdom, temperance, and courage which include intellectual and moral virtues, but there is also a unity thesis that one virtue isn’t possible without the others also in place, which suggests there is just one kind of virtue which might be called practical wisdom.If consistency isn’t essential to the nature of a will — if a will isn’t essentially rational — then a consistency requirement might be viewed as a heteronomy of the will and thus a spurious principle of morality.