Exploring Whether All Morality Should Reduce to Respecting Autonomy

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory according to which an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility. An action conforms to the principle of utility if and only if its performance will be more productive of pleasure or happiness, or more preventive of pain and happiness, than any alternative. The rightness of an action entirely depends on the value of its consequences, this is why the theory is described as consequentialist. The “separateness of persons” is an objection against utilitarianism stating that the theory fails to recognize people as distinct individuals. It rejects the allowance of one person’s loss to be offset by another person’s gain, and it is only the net sum total that ultimately matters. Recognition of the “separateness of persons” is needed to put constraints on such trade offs. In this essay I will lay out the theory of utilitarianism and explain the “separateness of persons” objection presented by John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Ultimately I do think they present a successful argument, since utilitarianism is detached from individuals it can lead to grotesquely immoral consequences when put into practice.

The preliminary point into an inquiry of distributive justice is to disconnect the conjunction of “distributive,” and “justice”. For the purpose of this essay, I will inherit and accept John Rawls explanation of justice from A Theory of Justice. “Justice,” according to Rawls, “is the first virtue of social institutions.” Therefore, from a societal perspective, justice as the first virtue negates the utilitarian maxim that a loss of freedom for one would be acceptable if there was a greater good to be shared by others. In a truly just society, all people are treated fair. The questions of individual liberties are taken as settled. In the just society, liberty, rights, and fairness are not subject to a utilitarian calculation nor are they susceptible to political bargaining.

Autonomy would be ranked the highest of the ethical principles because without it, the discussion on whether the donor has a choice in donating the kidney or not would be non-existent. For the donor to have the ability to even make a decision about donating the kidney, operating staff and doctors must be able to respect the autonomy of the donor. According to Edge & Groves (2006), autonomy is “where the individual is free to choose and implement her [their] own decisions, free from deceit, duress, constraint, or coercion” (p. 60). The donor must also be able to acknowledge that his/her decision will only be autonomous if it meets the three basic principles of informed consent: disclosure, understanding, and the decision to donate

Question 2: Morality tells us what we ought to do, and imposes upon us duties which it would be wrong not to fulfill. Yet Kant claims, in Chapter Two of the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, that autonomy—the ability

Kantian ethics is anthropocentric which means that Kant believes that nature has intrinsic value. Kant believes there should be moral limits on how we use animals.

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

Kant’s third and final formulation of categorical imperative “Formula of Autonomy” states that one must treat the idea of the will of every rational being, as a universal law. This means we should only act as maxims that are corresponding with a possible end. We should so act that we think of ourselves as a member in the universal realms of ends. We are required according to this formulation

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, and he described it thus, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 2008). This basic condition through which the moral principles guiding the relations between human beings is expected of all rational individuals, and determines how they express their moral autonomy and equality. All rational individuals who are morally autonomous willingly comply with the categorical imperative. They then use it to determine the form and scope of the laws which they will institute in order to safeguard these important conditions that form the basis of human rights (Denise, Peterfreund & White, 1999). According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to exercise reason, and this is what forms the basis for protecting human dignity. This exercise of reason must meet the standards of universality, in that the laws formulated must be capable of being accepted universally by all equally rational individuals (Doyle, 1983). Various accounts documenting the historical development of human rights overlook Kant’s moral philosophy, but it is very clear that, through the categorical imperative, he provides the ideals of moral autonomy and equality

Therefore, the restrictions on the particular knowledge in the original position are of fundamental importance (Rawls, 1971). Without the original position, the parties involved would not be able to work out any definite principles of justice (Rawls, 1971). The society who does not enact a social contract from the original position would then have to be content with a vague understanding of justice and therefore have very little substance to the agreement itself (Rawls, 1971). The veil of ignorance makes it possible to have a unanimous choice of a particular conception of justice (Rawls,

This is the idea that everything we decide between being moral or immoral should be based on a “Social Contract”, that all people agree upon. This “contract” is not an actual contract signed by everyone, but rather a hypothetical scenario that creates an ideal system. The scenario involves “what John Rawls calls ‘the original position’” (225, Murphy). The original position is the point at the beginning of society using the “united will of the entire people” (226, Murphy) to distinguish what should be considered just or unjust. It is important to note that this is not based on factual history, but rather a model in which society could be based on. Both Rawls and Kant agreed with contractarianism and both used it to make their justification on when it is alright to punish.

In the context of international relations and economic development, the demands of global justice remain controversial in terms of the relationships between affluent societies and less well-off ones. Many questions have been raised in regard of what distributive justice entails, what duty of assistance it requires, how much is owed, and to whom. In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls attempts to identify what principle of justice rational agents would choose if they were placed behind the “veil of ignorance”: they were deprived of all knowledge regarding their personal characteristics (sex, race, physical shape etc.) as well as social and historical circumstances (class, generation, etc.). Rawls concludes that rational agents in such positions would embrace the Difference Principle, the idea that inequalities are acceptable only insofar as they operate to benefit the least advantaged in society. This implies that inequalities can actually be justified as long as they are to the benefit of the least well off, and morally arbitrary factors should not determine one's life chances.

In my discussion of this piece of text I will attempt to present an argument which suggests rational individuals behind a veil of ignorance would assent to the two primary principles of justice found in Rawls’ ‘A theory of justice’. I will also analyse the extract, in particular debating whether various propositions made by Rawls in this extract are true. Initially it is important to situate the extract of discussion. Section 3 of ‘A theory of justice’ is the opening of Rawls’ argument in ‘A theory of justice’, where he introduces his ‘original position’, stating how rational individuals in a hypothetical scenario, behind a veil of ignorance, would agree to two principles of justice which would determine the way social institutions would be organised and how primary goods would be distributed. This section also shows Rawls’ agreement with the idea of ‘hypothetical consent’, an idea which suggests that because free and rational individuals behind a veil of ignorance would agree to Rawls’ two principles of social justice; they hypothetically consent to the principles of the ‘social contract’.

Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)