Our Politics

Tag: utilitarianism

  • Immanuel Kant & Dentological Ethics

    Immanuel Kant & Dentological Ethics

    One of the most influential figures on Western philosophical thought was Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), a German philosopher active during the 18th Century. Kant’s contributions to the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics (four of the main branches of philosophy) have had a profound impact on almost every philosophical movement that followed him. Throughout his works, Kant argued that

    • the human mind creates the structure of human experience,
    • that reason is the source of morality,
    • that aesthetics arises from a faculty of disinterested judgment,
    • that space and time are forms of human sensibility,
    • and that the world as it is “in-itself” is independent of humanity’s concepts of it.

    In terms of politics, Kant was one of the earliest proponents of the idea that political peace and stability could be achieved through international cooperation and worldwide democracy and believed that such a situation would be the eventual outcome of universal history.

    One of the main areas in which Immanuel Kant left his mark on was in the realm of Deontological Ethics. Derived from the word deon (“duty” in Greek), this ethical theory holds that there is an innate aspect to a given moral rule that makes it either good or bad. Thus, Kantian/Deontological ethical theory is based on established definitions of morality. The main aspect of Kant’s theory was the Categorical Imperative.

    Immanuel Kant defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative would compel action in a given circumstance (if I wish to satisfy my thirst, then I must drink something). A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself.

    He argued that the “highest good” must be both intrinsically good (good “in itself”), and good without qualification (when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse). He concluded that there is only one thing that is truly good: a goodwill chosen out of a feeling of moral duty. From this concept of duty, Kant derived what he called a categorical imperative, a principle that is intrinsically valid (good in and of itself), and that must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances if our behavior is to observe moral laws. He considered it an unconditional obligation, regardless of our will or desires, and regardless of any consequences which might arise from the action. He also believed that if an action is not done with the motive of duty, then it is without moral value and therefore meaningless.

    Kant developed his moral philosophy in three works: “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals” (1785), “Critique of Practical Reason” (1788) and “Metaphysics of Morals” (1797) and formulated it in three different ways :

    1. Act only in such a way that you would want your actions to become a universal law, applicable to everyone in a similar situation.
    2. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity (whether oneself or other), as both the means of an action, but also as an end.
    3. Act as though you were a law-making member (and also the king) of a hypothetical “kingdom of ends”, and therefore only in such a way that would harmonize with such a kingdom if those laws were binding on all others.

    The idea of Deontological Ethics as proposed by Immanuel Kant is not without its share of critics, in particular, proponents of Libertarian philosophy, as well as the idea of Utilitarianism are opposed to the theory. The Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick points out that Deontology forbids some acts that maximize welfare overall. The example used is that of a trolley hurtling towards five innocent and immobile people at the end of a track, where the only way to stop the trolley and save the five is to throw one innocent bystander in front of the trolley. The Principle of Permissible Harm in Deontology rules out deliberately throwing a person in front of the trolley, but the consequence of that is that five innocent bystanders die (which also contravenes the Principle of Permissible Harm).

    Proponents of Utilitarianism such as Jeremy Bentham have criticized Deontology on the grounds that it a  version of popular morality, and that the objective and unchanging principles that deontologists attribute to natural law or universal reason are really just a matter of subjective opinion. John Stuart Mill argued that deontologists usually fail to specify which principles should take priority when rights and duties conflict, so that Deontology cannot offer complete moral guidance. Mill also criticized Kant’s claims for his Categorical Imperative, arguing that it is really just another way of saying that the ends justify the means, which is essentially a consequentialist argument.

  • What Is Utilitarianism

    What Is Utilitarianism

    In the 1861 essay “What Utilitarianism Is,” John Stuart Mill defines the theory of utilitarianism and addresses the common misconceptions people have regarding it. Utilitarianism is an ethical doctrine that claims that virtue is based on utility and that all human conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest overall level of happiness of the highest number of individuals in society. Mill observes that people misunderstand the true definition of utilitarianism by interpreting utility as opposition to pleasure. In reality, Mill states that utility is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain and suffering. Mill discusses the idea of the Greatest Happiness Principle, which holds that actions are right if they= promote happiness and wrong if they produce the pain and suffering. Happiness is described as deliberate pleasure and the absence of pain, whereas unhappiness is described as consisting of pain and the lack of comfort. Following such an idea, pleasure and the absence of pain are the only things that are acceptable as ends in themselves and the only things that are inherently good and moral. As such, actions are good when they lead to a high level of general happiness, and bad when they decrease that level of general happiness.

    The next criticism that Mill addresses is the claim that it is demeaning to reduce the meaning of life to pleasure. Mill replies that human pleasures are superior to animalistic pleasures and that once people are made aware of their higher level of intellect, they will never be happy to leave their pleasures uncultivated. As such, happiness is considered to be an indicator that humans are utilizing their higher mental capacities. Even though it is the case that some pleasures may be invaluable, it does not mean that all forms of pleasure are not valuable. Instead, it is the case that some forms of pleasure are more intrinsically valuable than others. When making a moral consideration on an act, Mill asserts that utilitarianism takes into account both the size and the quality of the pleasures that result from it. Mills also makes a distinction between high and low pleasures. Pleasure is considered to be high if people would choose it over a different desire even if discomfort accompanies it and also if they would not trade it for a greater amount of any other pleasure. Moreover, Mill contends that people will prefer pleasures that appeal to their higher faculties if they have equal access to all different varieties of pleasures.

    Another common misconception about utilitarianism highlighted by Mill stems from the confusion of happiness and contentment. People with higher capabilities are often less content and happy because they have an understanding about the limitations of the world. On the other hand, their pleasure is often of a higher character than that of an animal or an unintelligent person. Additionally, Mill argues that the people who are best qualified to judge the overall quality of a pleasure are people who have had experience in understanding both the higher and lower pleasures. Mill then observes that even if the possession of a noble character and moral lifestyle brought about less happiness to the individual, society would still benefit. The main reason as to why society would still benefit is because the greatest happiness principle considers the total amount of happiness to be noble and morally right, even if less desirable for an individual to still be desirable in society by utilitarian standards.

    In conclusion, John Stuart Mill describes the main principles of utilitarianism in the essay “What is Utilitarianism.” According to Mill, Utilitarianism is the ethical principle that stipulates that virtue is entirely based on utility and that the primary goal of society is to should be directed toward promoting the higher level of happiness for the largest number of individuals in society. In his analysis of utilitarian principles, Mill attempts to address some of the common misconceptions that individuals have regarding utilitarianism and makes a distinction between the different types of pleasures in society. Additionally, Mill goes over the common misconceptions that emerge regarding the definitions of happiness and contentment and concludes that both concepts are different and that they are mutually exclusive of each other.