Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Finished writing up my draft for my Philosophy Paper! It is 1 and a half pages longer than it needs to be and I am very proud of its content! I am so proud of it that I shall post it here (not that I expect anyone to read a 5 page [double-spaced] paper on Facebook, but feel free if you feel like it): Second Paper: Kant’s Ethical Theory Versus Utilitarianism Philosophers have been making different philosophical theories for decades trying to create the most comprehensive and “correct” modes of thinking that accurately spell out proper conduct. This is a difficult task because philosophy is rarely cut and dry, and there is seemingly no scientific way to prove such theories to be “correct,” at least not one that has been perceived as of yet. Because of this fact, many different philosophical theories have been made as hard-thinking men attempt to strive for truth. Two philosophical theories that have been made are Kant’s Ethical Theory and the theory of Utilitarianism. There are strengths and weaknesses to each, but I believe Kant’s Ethical Theory to be preferable to the theory of Utilitarianism, and will endeavor in this essay to defend my position. Kant’s Ethical Theory holds that, among other things, the only thing that is unconditionally good (not because of something else) is good will and intention. He believes talents such as bravery, intelligence, and self-control are often desirable, but points out that when these qualities are possessed by a person of poor character or malevolence they no longer seem to be so intrinsically virtuous. Good will, however, is the one unconditionally good thing in his eyes. Kant also believes that there are two sides to ethics, namely what is right and what is good. What is right is what one should do, and what is good is what should be aimed for as a goal to accomplish through acting. He believes actions do not demonstrate moral value through the good consequences that come of them but from the maxim that prompted the action. He believes a good action done for the sole reason that the person acting found the action pleasant is morally worthless. Kant also believes that a guiding principle in philosophy should be that people should only act on maxims that their wills can desire to be universal laws for all to follow. In other words, he believes people should only act in ways that they would like everyone else to follow as a rule of thumb. This idea of categorical imperatives provides a logical tool for moral guidance that is not dictated by selfish personal goals. For instance, I may will that I steal food because I am hungry, but I could not possibly desire everyone to steal food when they are hungry as a rule of thumb because that would mean people might steal my food. Those who believe in psychological egoism believe that no human being ever does anything that cannot in some way be traced back to his own self-interest. They believe that there is no such thing as a purely selfless act, even when the act consists of doing something for someone else’s sake. Kant’s assertion that a good action done for the sole reason that the person acting found the action pleasant or another selfish reason is not a good action at all might be challenged by psychological egoists on the grounds that all human actions are axiomatically selfish in the first place, as we are bound by natural and psychological laws to pursue our own interests. Kant is not sure whether or not we have a free will in terms of doing things completely for the sake of others and not our own. His response, however, is that we should attempt to decide on actions that take other people’s concerns into consideration anyway, because if we do have a free will than this would be the morally right thing to do. And if we do not have a free will, we should still try to decide in this way, because we do not know that we have no free will, and even if we do not our decision-making process is irrelevant. Utilitarianism holds that the only thing that matters in ethics is maintaining the greatest possible total amount of happiness felt by all and decreasing the total amount of pain felt by all. Utilitarians believe that everyone has an obligation to do what they can to increase the total amount of happiness in the world and decrease the total amount of pain, and that there is no such thing as supererogatory actions (things that are good to do but not morally wrong to not do). They believe that everyone’s happiness counts equally (your own happiness is not more valuable than other people’s), and that the only thing that matters is the consequence of an action, not the motivation of the action itself. Utilitarianism also holds that a greater number of happiness felt by some can justify the unhappiness of others if the happiness of the former outweighs the displeasure of the latter. Utilitarians acknowledge the fact that certain sources of happiness can be more desirable than others. For instance, as John Start Mill points out in his work Utilitarianism (1861), even if people were to be persuaded that lacking intelligence, knowledge or morality would allow them to be more satisfied with their lives, not all would desire to lose possession of their intelligence, knowledge or integrity. This is because there is a difference between contentment and happiness. While people who lack intelligence, knowledge and integrity have lower capacities of enjoyment than those who do not, and therefore may more easily reach their fullest capacity for enjoyment, this does not necessarily bring them more happiness than those with higher capacities of enjoyment. As Mill says, “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool … think otherwise, that is because they know only their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.” The reason Utilitarianism can be appealing is because pain and pleasure could arguably be seen as the only things of moral weight. As Mill argues, “pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things that are desirable as ends,” and “everything that is desirable at all is so either for the pleasure inherent in it or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.” Consider an action that brings pain to others. If that action did not bring pain to others, and bore no intention of bringing pain to others, where would the moral wrong reside? Arguably, it would not exist without either resulting pain or intended pain. Another reason why Utilitarianism can be attractive is because it requires people to put other people’s happiness on the same level as their own, and to strive for the greatest possible total happiness even if that means surrendering their own. One problem with Utilitarianism, however, is that it might allow a majority of people with the same interest to bring harm to a minority with a conflicting interest in a situation where it does not seem appropriate for the minority to suffer on the grounds that the total happiness of the larger group of people outweighs the pain of the few in the minority. For an example of this, we will look to a situation where the contrast between Kant’s Ethical Theory and Utilitarianism becomes clearer. Consider a hypothetical situation proposed by Judith Thomson in an entry into the Yale Law Journal, where a doctor has five terminally ill patients and one healthy young man awaiting his regular check-up. In this scenario, harvesting the organs in the healthy young man’s body could save the lives of all five of the terminally ill patients but would, of course, kill the young man. The principle of utility would dictate that the five lives saved outweigh the one life taken, and that therefore the doctor should, without the young man’s consent if necessary, harvest his organs. However, this course of action hardly passes as morally permissible, let alone morally obligatory as Utilitarianism would suggest. The reasons this course of action can be viewed as morally impermissible may include the belief that killing is morally worse than letting die and that the doctor would be infringing the natural right of the young man to not be killed. In this instance Utilitarianism is a flawed manner to approach the problem. Kantian Ethical Theory, however, deals with the situation in a more proper manner. We could not will that actively killing the one to save the dying five would become a universal law for all people to follow in similar situations. One reason no one could will this is because they would no longer be safe at hospitals. If all doctors were to follow this course of action, people would be afraid to go to a hospital to receive care, and would fear for their lives if they ever stepped foot inside of one. No one would want to get their ailments treated, hospitals would not be safe, and people who do go to the hospital would do so at the risk that they would be involuntarily sacrificed for the sake of others. A doctor’s purpose is to preserve life, but not to preserve life by destroying other life. In fact, doctors swear oaths vowing to not cause harm to patients. Where Utilitarianism proves to be flawed in dealing with certain situations, Kantian Ethical Theory make a stronger case. It makes an assertion as to what should or should not be done and explains why the result of that course of action is desirable or not desirable. Consider another situation where a man living on the verge of poverty is surrounded by wealthy men. This man has to work very hard just to make ends meet, and because of this lives quite the stressful life. Having a little more wealth would alleviate a lot of his daily pains, and the wealthy people who surround him do not possess an intrinsic need for their extraneous wealth. Let us put aside for this analysis the question of whether or not the wealthy men are morally obligated to attempt to assist the poorer man. In a situation where the wealthy men do not voluntarily help the less fortunate man, would it be morally justifiable for the poorer man to steal a small portion of the rich men’s wealth for his own? Utilitarianism seems to suggest so, but Kantian Ethical Theory points out a flaw in this line of reasoning. No one could will that, as a universal law, people who are on the verge of poverty and in need of money will steal from those who have less of a need for money than themselves. This is because if everyone were to act in this manner, no one would be secure in their possession of capital, and people’s money could be taken from them at any time without their consent by those that lived underneath them. Kantian Ethical Theory would, therefore, forbid such an action. The society that would result from this action framing universal law for everyone to follow would be chaotic, and the possession of property in this society would be meaningless because it could be taken away at any time, without due process. Such a society does not seem like one worth living in, and the Utilitarian approach hardly seems to apply appropriately to this situation. There are those who still believe Utilitarianism to be morally superior to Kantian Ethical Theory because they believe Utilitarianism is more effective in forcing people to consider other people’s happiness and the greater good above their own interests. However, Utilitarianism demonstrates many flaws in its application, as discussed in the examples above. What is good for the greater majority of people is not always necessarily what’s right. Kantian Ethical Theory, however, does guard against people’s selfish interests. Its assertion that people should act as though their actions were framing universal law is particularly effective in this regard. Any morally deficient maxim that leads to actions that have a malignant effect on other people is not going to be something that anyone could will that everyone would act upon as a universal law. This is because, if this were true, they could stand to suffer as well. In this way, Kantian Ethical Theory proves to be more effective and more viable than the theory of Utilitarianism.
Posted on: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 17:40:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015