Moreover, utilitarianism may not condemn actions which are generally considered immoral as long as they create more happiness than suffering. For instance, a legal drug with no bad side effects could be seen as good. Another example could be three hundred sadists intensely enjoying the severe misery and pain of one person. That the pleasure of a sadist should have the same importance as the pleasure of an seems outrageous, but the utilitarian view that everyone counts as one appears to promote such an action. However, note that in practice, altruistic acts help many more people and hurt many fewer than sadistic ones do, and so utilitarianism almost always condemns sadism and sanctions altruism.
Utilitarianism has also been criticized for only looking at the results of actions, not at the desires or intentions which motivate them, which many people also consider important. An action intended to cause harm but that inadvertently causes good results would be judged equal to the result from an action done with good intentions. However, many utilitarians would argue that utilitarianism applies not only to results, but also to desires and dispositions, praise and blame, rules and punishment. For instance, bad intentions may cause harm (to the actor and to others) even if they do not result in bad acts. Once this is recognised, it can be argued that utilitarianism becomes a much more complex and rich moral theory, and may align much more closely with our moral intuitions.
Intentions are addressed much more seriously in deontological ethics, reflected in Kant’s opinion that “the aim of life is not to achieve happiness, but to deserve it”. , is an ethical theory considered solely on duty and rights, where one has an unchanging moral obligation to abide by a set of defined principles. Thus, the ends of any action never justify the means in this ethical system. If someone were to do their moral duty, then it seems that it would not matter if it had negative consequences.
One of the main advocates of this philosophy is Immanual Kant (–), who, during the Enlightenment Project, attempted to deduce the rational way to live. Kant imaged a ‘Kingdom of Ends’ in which entirely rational beings live in harmony by common principles and with respect for others. With regard to , Kant argued that the source of the lies not in anything outside the subject, either in or given by , but rather only in a good will. A good will is an intention of a rational being which acts in accordance with universal moral laws that the human automatically and freely give themselves. Kant emphasises that this is only true of rational beings. These laws obligate him or her to treat other human beings as ends rather than as means to an end. This is summarised in Kant’s quote:
“There is only one good thing and that is a good will”
Kant also proposed a ‘categorical imperative’ which asserted whether a moral action is good or bad. Kant defined an as any proposition that declares a certain kind of action (or inaction) to be necessary. A would compel action under a particular circumstance: If I wish to satisfy my thirst, then I must drink this lemonade. A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, and is both required and justified as an end in itself. The catagorical imperative is best known as:
“So act that the maxim of your action could be willed as a universal law”
Kant employs the word ‘maxim’, meaning the subjective principle or rule that the of an individual uses in making a decision. For instance the maxim behind taking your rubbish out each week is to live healthily, because not taking your rubbish out would result in multiplying bacteria and possible spread of disease. Another example, the moral proposition "One should never lend aid to another person unless there is something in it for oneself" could only be morally true if the individual never wanted help from another person, because that is the only case in which they could will it to be true. Since we can determine (by empirical observation) that this is rarely the case, we have a duty to help others in their times of need, when possible. Whilst at first glance this appears similar to the golden rule ‘do unto others as you would do unto yourself’, Kant’s catagorical imperative deals with problem cases such as masochistic and suicidal individuals coherently. It also accounts for the problematic question ‘is the reason you should treat others as you would treat yourself because you do in fact want other people to treat you in that way?’; a question sometimes raised in contention to the Golden Rule. Kant challenged the Golden Rule with the famous motto ‘what if everyone did that?’, believing that rational beings aim to act according to consistent principles and that a descion is made by generalising a problem.
Kant claimed that truth is like a magnet for rational people. When a sum is written on a board in a room, and people enter without any instructions, they invariably and almost automatically work out the answer if they have the capability to. Kant claimed this quest for the truth is the main motivation behind his deontological theory; entirely rational people cannot live with contradiction, and thus, if a contradiction is present in themselves, then they are being irrational. Kant thinks of irrationality as a synonymn for immorality, claiming that anyone who lives with contradictions according to the catagorical imperative is being immoral. He says that consistency is an essential factor for rationality, and in order to be consistent, one must have maxims. Thus, in order to be rational one must have maxims.
However, as with every philosophical theory, there are problem cases and criticisms of Kant’s deontological ethics. The well meaning fool is often bought up in opposition to Kant as an example of why consequences should at least be considered. Someone with flawless intentions who foolishly doesn’t take into account all the connotations and repercussions of his action, creating disaster, would seemingly be a highly moral person under the Kantian ethics. However, this can be countered by claiming that someone with genuinely good intentions would consider the potential indirect consequences of their action before acting; the well meaning fool is said to be ‘wearing blinkers’ which in itself is ill-intentioned. Kant suggests that good intentions imply attaining an education in order that you can assess situations better, a form of intellectualism also backed by the mighty Socrates.
Relative maxims are also problematic. The principle for exactly the same action can be described in dramatically different ways by different people. An example of this would be a terrorist freedom fighter, who might claim he is acting under the maxim ‘always do your best to prevent your family and friends from suffering oppression from others’, which is clearly drastically different to the interpretation of the action by his victims’ families who might see it as ‘murder innocent people when you feel like it’. Kant would claim that there is an inherent maxim to every action according to all its details which could simply be worked out due to negotiation to obtain an absolute correct maxim for the action. However, the correct maxim of an action must be at least partly relative due to the different situations the two different parties are occupy. Indeed, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
Furthermore, some argue that following maxims leads to silly universalisations and blind rationality which impede certain situations. An example of this objection to Kant’s ethics in action is in the case of a large car crash which five people encounter and every one of them impliments the maxim ‘always ring the ambulance if you think someone could be injured’. In doing so, none of them try to help smaller injuries or inform any of the other emergency services because as narrow-minded individuals, they are all competing to get through to the same service. This challenge can however be refuted by Kant with the question “what if everybody did that?”. Indeed, if everybody rang the ambulance whilst you were injured, it would not be the most effective aid for yourself, and thus would no doubt not be able to be willed as a universal law. Simply rewriting the maxim to something such as ‘Always do the thing that will help most when someone is injured’ could easily solve the predicament.
Qualms about moral minimalism and alienation are often used in an attempt to refute the catagorical imperative. Kant’s sentiments that you should not follow your feelings because it results in you following bad ones as well as good ones is criticised because the catagorical imperative only requires you to follow your duty. Thus, it appears to promote alienation from feelings in order to follow your duty. In today’s society where there is a definite notion of the ‘right’ feelings, this has caused much controversy. However, this is not Kant’s genuine position; he claims that feelings can be good, but they are definitely not morality.
Kant’s ideal of a ‘Kingdom of Ends’, and indeed most ethical schools, petitions to questions about scope. If you have good moral standards, to whom do you apply them? In utilitarianism, some activists such as , have argued that the happiness of all who can feel pain and pleasure should count, not only the feelings of humans. Kant’s ethics only apply to ‘rational beings’ and so animals are left out of the theory. Problem cases such as the brain damaged or mentally ill spurs us to ask the question ‘where do I draw the line of morality and why?’
Kant’s theory seems to suffer most from the attack that someone with warped and unconventional values could will all kinds of universal laws without inconsistency. A masochist could will the torture of everybody as long as he did not mind being tortured himself. This example shows no objection with Kant’s catagorical imperative, indicating that Kant’s theory only holds with those possessing ‘usual’ values.
The two different theories deal with moral dilemmas in drastically different ways:
You have been told to attend the funeral of your father in one week’s time to whom you were very close. His death has caused you an inordinate amount of grief, and his loss caused you to contemplate suicide. If you do not go, your relatives and particularly your mother would be shocked and upset, but you feel that dragging up the memories of your father could make you suicidal once again.
Utilitarianism would attempt to maximise pleasure in this situation as in any. There is a week in which to make the calculation to maximise pleasure and minimise suffering, and so your calculation is likely to be more accurate than if you were required to act in a shorter amount of time. Telling a lie in order to avoid having to go to the funeral seems like the most attractive option initially, because if your relatives did not find out then it would not result in any suffering, aside from a small amount on their behalf (your mother making up a large percentage) that you weren’t well enough to attend. However, a funeral is not the type of family occasion you can usually ‘get out of’ simply by ‘pulling a sickie’. Your relatives may rearrange the funeral for another day requiring you to lie again. Or they may go ahead with the funeral and request a separate period of mourning alone with you. This could spiral into an entangled web of lies, which could have disastrous repercussions if it were uncovered; most mothers (and philosophy teachers) hold lying to them worse than many crimes with prison sentences, and thus would probably disown you. Going to the funeral is out of the question because there is a high risk it could lead you to kill yourself. The total of your net happiness outweighs how ‘happy’ your relatives would be should you show up. In fact, they probably wouldn’t be happy to see you there at all, but would consider it normal. Furthermore, should the funeral lead you to kill yourself, your own death on top of that of your father’s would probably lead several of them onto suicide themselves. Ideally, a drug would be taken that could numb your emotions for a short period of time in order that you would appear sombre to your relatives, but in fact feel nothing. Such a drug, however, does not exist, so realistically it would be best to inform your relatives of your closure, and therefore will not be attending the funeral. Some may even be happy that you told them the truth as straight as you did, and considering it is your own father, distant relatives would be unlikely to question such an action even in their own minds. It might be best to leave out the suicidal tendencies when informing less close relatives of your future absence from the proceedings as this could result in unwarranted concern.
Kantian deontological ethics requires you to act so that you could universalise your maxim. The maxim in this case may be ‘never do something that could lead to suicide’, which, assuming you don’t actually want yourself or anyone else to commit suicide, could easily be universalised. Whilst some might feel it is your ‘duty’ to go to the funeral, even if it is just so that you can comfort your mother, it could lead to your death. As long as you did not mind your own son not attending your funeral, the action seems justified by Kant’s categorical imperative, and remains coherent. Kant requires us to ask the question ‘what if everybody did that?’ If everybody skipped funerals, then no one would go to funerals and so funerals as they exist at the moment would cease to be convention. People would most probably mourn in their own homes, which would be fine, and thus the only rebound from telling your relatives you don’t want to come would be emotional feelings, which are according to Kant, is not morality and therefore irrelevant in this case.
Another dilemma would be a situation in which a philosophy essay is due in for the next day, but it is 11:30PM, so trying to finish it would cause mild suffering on your behalf because you would have to stay up for a large portion of the night. You could lie to you mother, telling her you feel ill with a cold so that you would not have to go into school the next day, effectively removing any suffering because the philosophy teacher takes ages marking the essays anyway.
Utilitarianism would attempt to maximise pleasure (and minimise suffering) in this situation as in any. Lying to your mother would be the best option if she weren’t to find out that you were in fact not ill. This would be the best option, because it would create no suffering aside from you having to catch up tomorrow, and the repercussions that that has.
Lying under the categorical imperative seems to create an instant paradox, in that you would need to will it as a universal law. Is it possible to universalise a maxim that permits lying? The maxim would be ‘it is okay to lie (i.e. cheat) when you want/need to’. This undermines itself, destroying the rational expectation of trust upon which it depends. Therefore, this dilemma cannot be resolved under Kant’s ontology by lying, because this would create an instant contradiction, resulting in immorality as discussed above. If you didn’t hand the essay in on time, we must ask ‘what if everybody did this?’ The teacher would get behind on marking, eventually reporting the class to the headmaster as ‘rebellious’. The headmaster would keep the whole class in detention. He would tell the class how naughty they are, and how good rugby is. If it was a universal law, some pupils from the class would get tired of the constant detentions and simply move to a different school, resulting in no philosophy class at RGS. Tragic. Thus, the best action would be to will the maxim, ‘always do homework if you can’, and do your duty. However, it does not matter what your attitude is whilst you do the essay, so it could be done begrudgingly if desired.
I reject utilitarianism, primarily on the basis that it is seems to be incompatible with . For example, if or is beneficial for the population as a whole, it could theoretically be justified by utilitarianism. Utilitarian theory thus seems to overlook the rights of minority groups. It might also ignore the rights of the majority. A man might achieve such pure ecstasy from killing 100 people so that his positive utility outweighs the negative utility of the 100 people he murdered. Whilst utilitarians would argue that justification of either slavery, torture or murder would require improbably large benefits to outweigh the direct and extreme suffering of the victims, it still appeals to me that these three things (and others) are inherently wrong no matter what the consequences; in other words, they are absolutely immoral. Whilst it is true of Kant’s theory that relative maxims can lead to warped universal laws, unlike utilitarianism, it requires the person holding the intention to be rational, as well as to be accepting of the affect that the universal law might have on them. Also, the motivation behind utilitarianism seems weaker than that of Kant’s deontological ethics, which is contained in the ‘good will’. The sole motivation for utilitarianism is the pursuit of increased net happiness or pleasure, and the theory appears to set the bar far too high for a moral action: there appears no upper boundary to the happiness potential.
In conclusion, there are pros and cons to both Kantian deontological ethics and utilitarianism. Utilitarianism promotes paternalistic democracy, where as the democracy implied by Kant’s moral theory would be more liberal with emphasis on individual freedom. Both appear to advocate a cold and almost robotic inclination to follow your duty. Kant’s deontology has many universal laws, placing reason above all else, but utilitarianism has just one which others can be deduced from according to situations. The lack of any desire to perpetuate happiness in Kantian deontological ethics could be disconcerting to some, favouring statements such as ‘If I am unhappy or in pain, following my duty would probably be slightly lower down my list of priorities.’ However, the theory does have a great strength in that it offers the possibility of criticising evil cultures, even the one in which you yourself are living. A combination of the two theories in which duty, happiness, intentions and consequences all played a role would be the ultimate. However, constructing a coherent theory as such is a grand and daunting task.
