Readings: 

Immanuel Kant : The Moral Law, 480-493

John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism, 493-500

With the readings from Kant and Mill, you will be looking at two distinct and opposing ethical systems: Deontological ethics (Kantian or duty based ethics) and utilitarian ethics. Each moral system has both its strengths and its flaws. Kant is much harder to read than Mill, so I have included some additional notes beyond the scope of the reading for Kant. With Mill, I provide some lecture notes on Mill’s influence, Jeremy Bentham  and provide a comparison and contrast to each man’s view of utility.  

Kant

Immanuel Kant argues that morality (or ethics) should not be based on feeling but applying reason, which will lead people to universal truths. He develops, a key principle, the Categorical Imperative — which tells people always to act in such a way that the principle of actions can be universally applied. 

Before Kant’s revolutionary way of understanding morality, ethics was founded in natural law theory. Kant seeks to separate ethics from God’s will and law, and by doing so, he lays the groundwork for appealing to that which is universal. This is, again, a break with traditional ideas in Ancient and Medieval thought. This universal is something that is possessed by all humans, and reason can, therefore, be applied to his proposed ethical system. Using reason and freedom can lead to “Good Will” provided that the individual’s rationale is grounded in actions that are absent of self-interest (ulterior motives). The form (idea) of Good Will is an absolute.

Kant feels that reason (it must have its limits) must make room for faith. There is only so far that reason can take the human mind (This idea is, ironically, a bit like Dante’s rationale for movement from the Inferno to Purgatory to Paradise.) Only by faith, after reason has gone as far as it can go, can the highest level of existence be reached). Reason alone cannot satisfy the human quest for sensory perception in the physical world. Reason has boundaries, and reason seeks to be complete, so there must be, for Kant, something outside of reason to make reason complete. In order for reason to find wholeness, it must transcend – or have transcendental ideas. This idea includes God. Empirical knowledge cannot be complete without something more, such as the supersensible object.

There does seem to be a relationship between Kant’s justification of ethics and the argument for the existence of God. Kant argues that God is a product (idea) of pure reason and that there can be no way to ever really know things. He, therefore, reasons, that reason itself can take the human mind only so far. For Kant, things-in-themselves cannot be known, so it is no surprise that he would take it to a higher level of pure reason for a being such as God. The development of morality is also systematic and requiring the use of pure reason. Moral (universal) law cannot be established on empiricism because reason must be established. God and morality are joined at the hip via pure reason, something beyond the view of our senses.  

For Kant, it does not matter if happiness is involved with select the correct moral actions. That should not be a consideration. That which must be done is right to do so according to the categorical imperative. Therefore, it becomes our duty to do so.

Kingdom of Ends =Moral Community

The Utilitarians

John Stuart Mill, accomplished in his own right, built off of a principle of utility proposed by his predecessor and teacher, Jeremy Bentham. Bentham was an interesting personality (he had his body preserved upon death so he could be wheeled into faculty dinners and London College—it was a stipulation in his will before funds were released). The Utilitarians seek to achieve the best possible action by weighing the consequences of the options. The best action is that which produces the greatest happiness for the most concerned or involved with people with the action. Both Bentham and Mill seek utility. It is paramount to Bentham that pain is avoided and pleasure sought. In order to arrive at this right action for all involved, Bentham proposes a formula so that the right action can be calculated for each situation. He develops a felicific calculus where one can just calculate the proper action by working out how much happiness is involved for each action. Mill has doubts as to how all of these calculation could lead to the proper action all of the time. Mill says that Bentham has a very narrow focus and looks at everything equally (or in a quantitative sense rather than a qualitative sense).

Mill, on the other hand, sees different values on different kinds of happiness. In other words, there is a difference in quantity of happiness as opposed to the quality of happiness. He views existence in deeper sense in the application of utility. He argues that there are qualitative pleasures as illustrated in one of his most famous quotes: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”   Some pleasures are greater than others, and actions need to be divided into categories based upon the projected consequences. Mill’s ideas are, in some sense, an evolution of Bentham’s ideas. He takes Bentham’s ideas and expands and “grows” them to include differences between types of pleasures.

Post Question:

What ethical system makes more sense to you? Why? Are there any flaws to the ethical system you chose? What flaws does the system you did not select seem to have?