Kant’s Approach to Ethicsand Utilitarianism

Consider:Is it ok to jump the queue for lunch because you

can’t be bothered to wait?

What would happen if everyone did the same?

Chaos.

There would be no queue to jump.

Jumping the queue whenever you feel like it is a contradiction.

Kant’s approach argues that in order to see if something is your duty you should see if you can consistently generalise it.

Consider the following statements:

One should keep one’s promises .

One should not steal, cheat, kill.

Now construct arguments to show what our duty is with regard to each of the following:1. Stealing 2. Cheating on tests3. Polluting the environment4. Voting in elections5. Suicide6. Writing honest references for university

applications

Then consider how convincing these arguments are.

Kant attaches a lot of importance to consistency (think back to where else this has been mentioned).

Why do you think he does this?

Dual conception:Me

One among others

Do as you would be done to

The Veil of IgnoranceThis is a concept which allows/requires you to

be objective. Person X does action p to person Y and that

you are either person X or person Y but you do not know which one.

How do you feel about the action?Do you think it acceptable or not?

Values and dignityAgain, looking at the dual conception idea; no

one person should be given preferential treatment but also no individual should be discriminated against.

Consider the difference between objects and persons, where the former have value and the latter have dignity.

Importance of motivesKant says the moral value of an action is

determined by the motive behind it rather than the consequences of the action.

e.g. you are trying to be helpful but it turns out

badly – you are less likely to attract censure.You are trying to hurt someone but it doesn’t

work out – you will still be regarded as a bad person.

Reason or feelings?Kant says that to be truly moral our actions

should be motivated by reason rather than feelings as feelings are unreliable.

3 different motives for doing good:1. You expect something in return2. Sympathy3. Duty

Consider the following:If a cat jumps into a pram, who deserves

more praise for removing it: someone who likes cats or someone who is frightened of cats?

Who deserves more praise: a person who helps another person because they like them, or a person who helps another person even though they don’t like them?

Criticisms of KantRule worship – moral absolutism. E.g. lying is always wrong. Which of the following would justify breaking a generally accepted rule?

1. you should respect the highway code but it’s ok to jump a red light when you are late for work.

2. You should respect the highway code but it’s ok to jump a red light when you are taking a critically ill person to hospital.

3. You should pay your taxes but it is ok not to pay them if you are short of money this year.

4. You should pay your taxes but it is ok not to pay them if they are being spent on a nuclear arms programme.

Conflicts of dutyIf a person has been unfaithful, should they

confess and risk making their partner unhappy or stay silent and deceive them?

If a terrorist group takes a civilian hostage and threatens to kill them unless the government released five convicted terrorists, should the government give in to their demands?

Moral coldnessKant’s approach leaves no room for

commonsense intuition.

What often motivates us to “do the right thing” is feeling rather than reason.

Could we argue that feelings are what connect us to each other and reason is what isolates us.

UtilitarianismOne supreme moral principle – that we should

seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Maximise happiness!Actions are right in so far as they tend to

increase happiness and wrong in so far as they tend to decrease it.

Theory developed by Jeremy Bentham (1748 -1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-73)

What is happiness?

It is the sum of pleasures. A happy life is one that maximises feelings of pleasure and minimises feelings of pain. (Bentham)

Higher GRH means a morally better world and a lower GRH means a morally worse world.

In favour of utilitarianismSimple method of deciding what to do. You

have a conflict of duties – which will bring the greatest pleasure to the most people?

Democratic theory – each person is the best judge of their own happiness and each person’s happiness is considered in determining GNH.

Long-term considerations – smoking gives pleasure but in the long run will cause more pain, so is a bad idea.

Egalitarian – e.g. distributing money from rich to poor.

Consider:How might a utilitarian justify or criticise the

following:

1. Eating ice cream every day2. Wearing seat-belts in cars3. Forcing a reluctant child to learn the piano4. Voluntary euthanasia

Practical objections:How do we measure happiness?

2 scoops of ice cream = ½ a day at the seaside = one evening with friends?

Can you measure the happiness of health or love or friendship?

Is a life of only pleasure actually a good thing?

Can we predict the consequences of our actions?

Imagine a married woman falls passionately in love with a colleague at work and is wondering whether or not to leave her husband. What should she do?Look at pros and cons and whatever maximises the happiness of the people involved. Can you see any problems with this approach?

Theoretical objectionsPleasure or happiness is not always a good

thing

Actions should be judged by their motives rather than their consequences

Utilitarianism is incompatible with the belief that we have moral obligations and individual rights

Bad pleasures:

Malicious pleasures: derived from the suffering of others

Empty pleasures: do not help us develop our potential or flourish

What problems are caused for utilitarianism if some pleasures are ‘better’ than others?

In summary:Utilitarianism – consequences more important than motives.Kant – motives (based on reason) are more important.

Utilitarianism – no room for moral obligations or human rights.Kant – too inflexible.You can lie as long as it makes the majority happy, against you can never lie even if it causes suffering.

Imagine the following scenario:Smith, an orphan with no family or friends is in

hospital for a cataract operation. The man in the bed on his left is dying of kidney failure and the man on his right is dying of heart failure. Solution – kill Smith and give his organs to the other men.

Jones is malicious and spends much time trying to make people in his village unhappy. One day you wait around a corner and smack him on the head with a heavy object before throwing him in the river. Result! Everyone else is happier!

As a utilitarian what would you say? What difficulties does this create for utilitarianism?

Rule utilitarianismDoes an action conform to a rule that promotes general happiness?

Not ‘what will the effect be on GNH if I break this promise?’ but ‘ what will the effect be on GNH if we abandon the rule that people should keep their promises?’

1. Imagine you are the sole heir to your great-uncle’s $5 million fortune. He makes you promise to use the money to start a butterfly farm. On his death you give it to an AIDS charity. Is your action right or wrong?

2. What light can these moral theories shed on these questions:

a. Is abortion ever justified?b. Should drugs be legalised?c. Are there limits to free speech?

Ethics are inescapableEthics are insoluble

Theories can help us consider the possibilities but in the end we cannot pass the buck and we have to make our own decisions.

Useful language:Altruism rule worshipCultural imperialism self-interest theoryDuty ethics special pleadingEgoism utilitarianismGolden rule value-judgementMoral absolutism veil of ignoranceMoral principleMoral relativismRights