Philosophy - Ethics

Utilitarianism & Kantian Deontology

Define utilitarianism:

a consequentialist normative moral theory that holds that the best action is that which maximises utility for the most people

Define Hedonism:

pleasure is of ultimate value, and all actions in life are in the aim of maximising pleasure and minimising pain

How does psychological hedonism link to hedonic utiliarianism?

Pleasure is of ultimate value, and everyone is morally equal therefore we should seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number

What form of utilitarianism did Bentham champion?

Quantitative, hedonic, act utilitarianism

What are the 6 effects of pleasure / pain mentioned in the hedonic calculus?

Intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity

What is Mill’s proof of utilitarianism? (Stage 1)

Just as being seen equals being visible, so does being desired equal being desirable - There is no reason as to why happiness is desirable other than that each person desires their own happiness - So we see that the general happiness is the sum of everyone’s desires.

Mill’s proof of utilitarianism stage 2:

Some things are desired as a means to happiness - some things we desire are constitutive of happiness - thus happiness is the end we all desire and we ought to aim at the greatest happiness of the greatest number

Utilitarianism Objection (The Injustice Objection)

If the happiness of the majority is more important than the happiness of individuals or of minorities, then we seem to be justified on utilitarian grounds in violating the rights of individuals and minorities to benefit the majority

Response to Injustice Objection

Mill argues that rights are rules which reflect understanding of what is in the long term interest of the community e.g. a right to a fair trial - societies who don’t respect the ROLaw are less happy, so we should respect rights of individuals as they are grounded in long-term utility (Rule utilitarianism)

Define Act utilitarianism:

act so as to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number

Define Rule Utilitarianism:

follow that rule which creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number

How do we decide using rule utilitarianism?

we should follow rules that have the tendency to produce utility (GHGN) in the long term until those rules clash, in that case we should use the hedonic calculus to decide.J

J.C.C Smart’s objection to rule utilitarianism:

given the complexity of every real life situation, if we attempt to apply secondary principles they are more likely to contradict one another and therefore rule utilitarianism collapses back into act utilitarianism due to using the hedonic calculus leaving no distinction between the two.

Utilitarianism Objection (Calculation problem)

What criteria do we apply? Total pleasure? greatest happiness? maximum satisfied preferences?

How do we decide which beings to include? Only humanity or all sentient beings?

How can you measure thing like pleasure + happiness?

The future is uncertain and endless

Bentham’s response to calculation problem

An act or policy is just according to its “tendency it appears to have” to maximise happiness - if an action tends to increase happiness, then you are just, even if the consequences are bad

Mill’s Response to Calculation Problem

We should follow the rule which lead to the best overall consequences in the circumstances - i.e. those rules which have stood the test of time e.g. do not steal, do not lie, treat others with respect

Utilitarianism Objection (Integrity Objection)

Utilitarianism is only concerned with consequences, but moral decisions are made in the first person - if you regard people and yourself as simply a vehicle to increase utility then you are simply only seeing yourself as a means to an end, putting yourself first is not selfish but human

Response to Integrity Objection

The fact that people prefer pleasure to pain is a fact, however personal guilt is of less importance than the greater good

Define Kant’s beliefs on good will:

Only a good will has intrinsic value

1. A good will is a will which wills to do what duty requires

2. Other valuable things can be used immorally, but a good will is always good. For instance, good fortune can corrupt someone’s character

3. The value of a good will is independent of consequences, a good will is still praiseworthy even if it achieves nothing

So only a good will is intrinsically valuable

Why should one act for the sake of duty? (Kant)

When presented with an act which could be wrong or right, you should always choose the action that follows your duty.

But this should be purely for the sake of following you futy rather than for personal gain or other reasons.

The latter actions cannot be classed as morally praiseworthy, whereas the former is praiseworthy for acting purely for the sake of duty.

Kant’s Problem with inclination

Kant argues that to be moral, we must be free

You are only morally responsible if you choose to act

Kant argues that inclinations are causes determining how we act, thereby not allowing us to have real free choice

So if you act from inclination, you will only act if inclination is present

But, what happens if there’s something you ought to do but don’t want to?

By contrast, free choice is rational and once one realises that they have a duty to do smth, that is all the motivation they need

Therefore, to be moral we must be motivated by reason and not inclination

Define a hypothetical imperative

a command that applies to you on the condition that you want something

E.g. you must revise if you want to do well on the test

Define a categorical imperative

a command that applies to you and all rational beings regardless of what they want

E.g. do not steal

What is Kant’s term for the 1st formulation of The Categorical Imperative

“Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can, at the same time, will that it become a universal law”

What is the process for the 1st formulation of The Categorical Imperative

Step 1: Turn your intention into a ‘maxim’ (your intention as a ‘rule’)

Intention: “I will tell Dave I will pay him back after he gives me money even though I won’t”

Maxim: "I will lie in order to get money”

Step 2: Consider if you can act on that maxim if everyone else is acting on it at the same time

Step 3: If that maxim presents a problem then the action is morally wrong

What are the two problems that can arise from universalising a maxim?

contradiction in conception

contradiction in will

Define a contradiction in conception

E.g. making false promises

When i try universalising it, it becomes logically impossible, as everyone is lying so nobody believe anyone, therefore it’s impossible to lie

Gives a perfect duty to not act upon that maxim

Define a contradiction in will

E.g. not helping others in need

When I try to universalise it, it’s conceivable, but you cannot rationally want a world like that, and it goes against my will to universalise it

Gives an imperfect duty to not do that thing

Define a perfect duty:

Take the form of absolute prohibitions with no exceptions

E.gs.

Don’t lie (perfect duty to others)

Don’t kill yourself (perfect duty to self)

Define an imperfect duty:

Take the form of guidelines or recommendations

E.gs.

Help others (imperfect duty to others)

Develop your talents (imperfect duty to self)

What does Kant believe about the moral importance of consequences?

Kant believes that the morality of an action is determined by the action itself, and whether that fits The Categorical Imperative - Consequences are morally irrelevant

Objection to Kant’s stance on consequences:

Consequences do matter morally

Murderer at the Door e.g. It seems obvious to lie because the consequences are better

Kant’s response to consequence objection:

Consequences are unpredictable, but acting on duty isn’t. If you lie, and the friend still gets murdered, you are morally responsible for that.

If consequences were morally relevant, morality would be based on something beyond our control and morality would become hypothetical.

Furthermore, for the murderer at the door example, if you incorporate lying into the moral maxim (“I can only lie to save a life”), it can be universalised and therefore we can still have favourable consequences using TCI

Objection to Kant (Ignoring the value of motives such as love, friendship, kindness etc)

Critics of Kant argue that motives other than duty can have moral worth

E.g. two fathers play with their children - one father plays out of the duty, the other, out of love.

We naturally believe the latter is morally better and Kant’s view that duty motivated acts are morally significant clashes with our intentions

Kant: There is nothing necessarily wrong with this intention or acting on inclination in general - but the joyful father is not acting morally as he is acting on inclination