Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism argues that the consequences of an action make that action moral or immoral. An action that leads to beneficial consequences is right or moral; one that leads to harmful consequences is wrong or immoral. Utilitarianism is known as a consequentialist theory.
What consequences count? Utilitarianism holds that an action is morally justified to the extent that it maximizes benefits and minimizes harms or costs. Thus, the one moral thing to do in any situation is that action that can be reasonably seen to provide the greatest net benefit, when the expected costs are subtracted from the expected benefits. To do something else is to behave unethically. The more an action maximizes net costs or net harm, the more immoral it becomes. Thus, utilitarianism calls for the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
But what is the "good" that we are trying to maximize? Utilitarians usually state that the greatest good means the greatest happiness. Your moral duty is to maximize human happiness and to minimize unhappiness. They back up this claim by pointing out that everybody wants to be happy—it is the one universal thing that everybody desires and agrees as good.
Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century English philosopher, equated happiness with pleasure and unhappiness with pain. A life of pleasure is a happy life, and a life of pain is an unhappy one. Some have objected that the “good life” is more than simply a life of simple pleasures. John Stuart Mill, a 19th century utilitarian philosopher, answered this objection by making qualitative distinctions between different types of pleasures (e.g. sensual, intellectual, etc.).
Most utilitarians agree with Mill, and believe that happiness means a type of fulfillment that goes beyond simple pleasure. However, they insist that the goal of morality is to maximize human happiness (or human benefits) and minimize human unhappiness (or human harms, or costs).
It is important to note that utilitarianism does not say that the moral action is the one that maximizes the benefits or happiness of the person doing the action. It must be the benefits and happiness of all—each person counts equally. Any attempt to use utilitarianism to justify selfish behavior at the expense of the greatest good for the whole society would be a misuse of the doctrine. Moreover, utilitarianism states that the short-term as well as long-term consequences of an action must be taken into account while determining whether the action is moral or not.
Immanuel Kant:
The Categorical Imperative:
[Categorical means absolute, unconditional. Imperative means essential, required.]
The Categorical Imperative (CI) is Kant’s fundamental moral principle. He claims that it is absolute (no exceptions, never overridden by other moral considerations). It is used to determine whether an action is morally permissible.
An action is permissible if and only if it is performed on the basis of a maxim that it can be a universal law.
Maxim: The reason for one’s action. Every voluntary action has a maxim. All maxims have the following format: I will perform action A in circumstances C for motive M. A, C, and M in this sentence are “blanks” that would have to be filled with the details of the particular action being evaluated.
Universal Law: Everyone will perform action A in circumstances C for motive M.
3 Steps for Using CI:
Find the maxim of the action being evaluated.
Change the maxim to a universal law. (Change the word “I” in the maxim to “Everyone.”)
Check to see whether this universal law is logically consistent. If it is consistent, then the action in question is permissible. If it is inconsistent, then the action in question is impermissible.
The 4 Examples:
Suicide Case: A man considers committing suicide for motives of self-love. Is this permissible?
The maxim of the action is, “I will commit suicide [action] in these unpleasant circumstances [circumstances] for the motive of self-love motive].”
The universal law is, “Everyone will commit suicide in these unpleasant circumstances for the motive of self-love.”
The motive of self-love simultaneously urges one to preserve and prolong one’s life, and to end it (to avoid suffering). This is contradictory. Thus, the action in question is impermissible.
Borrowing Money: A person considers borrowing money and promising to repay it, even though she knows she will be unable to repay it. Is this permissible?
The maxim of the action is: “I will promise to repay a loan [action] when I know that I will not be able to do so [circumstances] for the motive of convenience [motive].”
The universal law is: Everyone will promise to repay a loan when they know they will not be able to do so for the motive of convenience.
The motive of convenience both urges one to make a lying promise about repaying the loan, but would also result in a very inconvenient situation (in which no loans were possible). This is self-defeating, so the action is impermissible.
Developing Talents: I know that I have talents that have not been developed, but I am too lazy to work on developing them. Is this permissible?
The maxim of the action is: “I will leave my talents undeveloped [action] when I realize that I have certain abilities [circumstances] for the motive of remaining comfortable [motive].”
The universal law is: “Everyone will leave their talents undeveloped when they realize they have certain abilities for the motive of remaining comfortable.”
Although the motive of remaining comfortable pushes us to leave our talents undeveloped, everyone also has another motive: Wanting to get as much as possible out of life. This motive pushes us to develop our talents so we can benefit from them. Because these motives conflict, it is impermissible to leave all of one’s talents undeveloped.
Saving a Drowning Person: I am the only one who could save a drowning person, but doing so would be uncomfortable. Is it permissible for me to let this person drown?
The maxim of the action is: “I will let this person drown [action] when I am the only one who could perform the rescue [circumstances] for the motive of remaining comfortable [motive].”
The universal law is: “Everyone will allow others to drown when they are the only ones who could perform the rescue for the motive of remaining comfortable.”
Our motive of remaining comfortable is in conflict with another motive: Wanting to be assisted when we are in need of rescue. These motives are in conflict, so it is not permissible to allow others to go without assistance.
[http://www.isu.edu/~baerralp/Kant.rtf]
Three-Dilemmas:
The Partiality of Friendship
Anil has the responsibility of filling a position in his firm. His friend Pramit has applied and is qualified, but someone else seems even more qualified. Anil wants to give the job to Pramit, but he feels guilty, believing that he ought to be impartial. That's the essence of morality, he initially tells himself. This belief is, however, rejected, as Amit resolves that friendship has a moral importance that permits, and perhaps even requires, partiality in some circumstances. So he gives the job to Pramit.
[http://www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm]
Judge, criminal, abducted daughter
You are a Judge presiding over the trial of an alleged bank robber, who you know is innocent. However, something terrible in your life has happened: The enemies of the robber have kidnapped your 9-year-old daughter and have held her hostage. You don’t know where she is. The police have tried to locate her to no avail. The kidnappers have left you an anonymous note saying that if you convict the robber, they will set your daughter free. You fear the kidnappers could be abusing or even torturing your child. What would you do?
[http://listverse.com/2010/12/26/another-10-moral-dilemmas/]
The overcrowded lifeboat
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?
[http://www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm]
Great blog. 🤩
ReplyDelete