Studied by 2 people
Act Utilitarianism (Bentham)
A persons act is only morally right if/only it produces the best possible results in that situation
Principle of utility
follow what brings about the most happiness “greatest good for the greatest number”
Categorical Imperative (Kant)
definitive actions from maxims can be found, moral obligations which are binding
Universability
One of three formulations by Kant: consider your actions as if they were to become what everyone would do and the consequences of this
Summum Bonum
(latin) greatest good/ultimate good
Postulate
God, Immortality, Freedom (they must take place to fufil sunum bonnum)
Maxim
applicable values which come from the categorical imperative
Kingdom of ends
One of Kants formulations: act as if you create the rules
Denontological
Arguments based on rules
What is Benthams Utilitarianism?
“consequentialist relativist” theory, menaing ut focuses on the consequences and the context surrounding the action, “an act is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number”
Example of Bentham
I might lie to someone if they are really upset about a mistake they made. Me saying “yeah that’s awful” doesn’t really improve things.
However I might tell the truth to someone if they made a mistake but seem oblivious to it. I might say “have you thought about the consequences of this?”
Principle of Utility
The “principle of utility” is the principle that actions are to be judged by their usefulness in this sense: their tendency to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness.
“By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness… or… to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil or unhappiness [whether that be an individual or community]”- An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation
“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do…”-An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation
Hedonic Calculus (Bentham)
the intensity of the pleasure (how strong it is)
the duration of the pleasure (how long it will last)
the certainty of the pleasure (how sure you can be that the pleasure will arrive)
the propinquity or remoteness of the pleasure (the nearness or distance of the pleasure)
the fecundity of the pleasure (the chances of it being followed by more pleasure)
the purity of the pleasure (the tendency to produce only pleasure)
the extent of the pleasure (the number of people affected by the action).
Weaknesses of Betham
It places emphasis on the consequences of our actions.Utilitarianism looks at the consequences which are hard to see/calculate. You can also give examples such as: it is right to save the life of a child, unless they go on to become a mass murderer.
2. It ignores motives, rules and duties.Morality comes about from why you do something. Rules bring stability and people have a duty to obey them. Some people have duties and obligations that might not bring about happiness. E.g. parents have duties towards children. The hedonic calculus might not work in certain situations.
3. It ignores the rights of minorities. There is no guarantee that the majority is morally right.Examples used often include slavery, if it produces more happiness for the free population.There is also the example of someone who loves torturing cats, who gets enormous pleasure from it – far more than the pain the cat suffers.
4. It does not bridge the “is-ought” gap
You cannot derive an ought from an is. Just because something makes someone happy, it doesn’t mean it is morally right. e.g. if someone enjoys murder, they should do lots of it. e.g. humans evolved eating meat, therefore they should continue eating meat. These are examples which go from “is” to “ought”.
5. It leads to absurd or uncomfortable outcomes Utilitarianism would absurdly suggest that the more pleasure one gets from their evil acts, the less bad those actions are. Someone who coldly kills someone like a soldier in combat is 'more bad' than a psychopath who enjoys their killings, who's actions are more 'good' as a result. We can think of the trolley problem and extend it to killing one person to harvest their organs to save several. There are situations where the hedonic calculus would suggest this is the right thing to do.
Responses to Bentham’s Weaknesses (numbers correspond to the numbers in the challenge card e.g. weakness 1 is countered by response 1)
Act Utilitarianism does look at specific situations, but most are typical of “general classes of acts”, e.g. murder, rape, theft. We know that these produce unhappiness so the consequences can be known. In the case of saving a child who becomes a mass murderer, it probably leads to happiness to save a child. We cannot know they’ll become a murderer, and the chances are very unlikely anyway.
Rules and duties are only useful if they serve the primary Principle of Utility. If they don’t then the rule/duty is immoral. Motives for Utilitarians are good as they bring about happiness.
The majority should be considered above the minority. It would be unjust if the minority were considered above the majority. In response to extreme examples like slavery, the hedonic calculus does consider fecundity, purity and extent. Most obviously, slavery would not be a pure form of happiness/pleasure/utility. It would also extend to those who would find it abhorrent.
If you ask people what they want, they universally want happiness. This is enough to support the claim that we ought to bring about happiness. You can even argue that actions not done for happiness directly, involve happiness further down the line. e.g. studying to get better grades is not necessarily fun, but it improves life chances and options.
There will always be special cases that can be constructed to weaken an argument. However in general, Utilitarianism offers a common sense approach that is relatively straightforward when making moral decisions. It is also democratic in it’s aim and has human happiness at its foundation. The hedonic calculus could help Bentham here. However it is unlikely to ever resolve this sort of argument as we can’t actually measure happiness/utility.
Kant and happiness
He agreed with Hume that you cannot derive an ought from an is. Facts only show what is the case, not what ought to be.
We should not perform good deeds because they make us feel happy. If we feel happy by doing our duty then that is fine, but equally, emotion should take no part in performing a moral act.
When we perform the highest good we are in a state of happiness.
Kant and evidence
Kant saw that empirical evidence can be mistaken.
For example, a straight stick in water can appear bent.
Therefore we need something which doesn’t rely on our senses…
Kant and reason/rationality/intellect
For Kant, the key issue is how to discover a rational basis for one’s sense of duty and, from that, to devise a principle by which one could distinguish between right and wrong. Practical reason is there to develop the good will, not to achieve happiness.
The appeal to reason means that this can be a universal ethic available to everyone.
He didn’t think you could prove God’s existence, so couldn’t rely on God for morality.
Kant sought to discover and set out a rational basis for one’s sense of duty, and from that devise principles by which one could distinguish right from wrong.
Our capacity for rational thought is something which sets us apart from animals.
Good will
“There is no possibility of thinking of anything in the world which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will… The sight of a being who is not graced by a good will but who yet enjoys an uninterrupted prosperity can never delight a rational and impartial spectator. Thus a good will seems to constitute the indispensable condition of being even worthy of happiness”- From the opening of Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.
Actions are right independent of consequences. e.g. If this woman being loud got good news, we probably wouldn’t be as happy because she does not have a good will.
Purpose of the categorical imperative
At its most basic level it aims to: help people determine what is morally right or wrong.
Kant believed this was possible because everyone has an inbuilt sense of moral duty.
It’s not God imposed – it’s fully secular.
We should do what is right for no other reason than because we are a human and humans are capable of making rational decisions.
Kant argues that good will is the only thing that is:
Unconditionally, Universally and Intrinsically good
Categorical impertaive
An absolute, unconditional, moral command. In essence, the Categorical Imperative encourages us to think about whether our actions could be turned into a universal rule and whether we are treating others with the respect they deserve as autonomous moral agents. If an action passes these tests, it is considered morally right according to Kant's philosophy.
Comparison to hypothetical imperative
In order to explain it, Kant compared the categorical imperative to the hypothetical imperative.
The categorical imperative has the form: Do A.
The hypothetical imperative has the form: If A, then B.
e.g. if you want to be a mechanic, you should go to college and do an apprenticeship.
Hypothetical imperatives are instrumental – done to get something – and motivated by self interest. They can never lead to commands everyone ought to follow. However, categorical imperatives can be universalised – commanded to everyone. e.g. do not murder. Categorical imperatives can lead us to universal maxims (guidelines/principles).
Universal law (formulation 1)
This formulation emphasises the idea that you should only act according to principles or rules that you can imagine being applied universally, without leading to logical contradictions or chaos.
In other words, if you can't will that everyone should follow the same principle without negative consequences, then it's morally impermissible.
example: If I borrow money, and promise to pay it back, knowing that I will not be able to, then my maxim (guideline/principle) is: When I am in need of money, I will borrow it and promise to pay it back, although know that I can never repay it. —> problem: If that maxim became a universal law, it would be self-contradictory. If everyone lied about paying back money, eventually the lie would be impossible for lenders to believe. (boy who cried wolf)
Perfect duties: According to Kant's reasoning, we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions when we attempt to universalise them. The moral proposition A: "It is permissible to steal" would result in a contradiction upon universalisation. The notion of stealing presupposes the existence of personal property, but were A universalised, then there could be no personal property, and so the proposition has logically negated itself. e.g. dont steal
Imperfect duties:Still based on pure reason, but which allow for desires in how they are carried out in practice. Because these depend somewhat on the subjective preferences of humankind, this duty is not as strong as a perfect duty, but it is still morally binding.
There is no contradiction in these statements. E.g. It’s permissible to not give to charity
The practical imperative/ humanity (formulation 2)
This formulation underscores the importance of respecting the inherent worth and dignity of every individual. It encourages treating people as autonomous beings with their own goals and not using them merely as tools to achieve your own ends.
“at the same time” is key here. We use people all the time – taxi drivers, chefs, waiters, teachers – but we treat them as an end in themselves at the same time.
It follows from universal law as, we want people to treat us as an end in ourselves as well. Society would fall apart without it.
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." -Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
Kingdom of Ends (formulation 3)
Always act as though you are responsible for making rules in a kingdom where everyone is treated as an end in themselves – a society of free and autonomous human individuals.
“Act as though a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends."- Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
Kant weaknesses
Note 
Flashcard (68)