Jeremy Bentham first had the key concept of the principle of utility (Perry 457). It takes into account the outcome of utility or happiness an action produces, aiming for the most happiness and the least amount of sadness or pain. (Driver para. 1) Bentham believed the overall satisfaction of the majority should outweigh the minority (Driver section 1). This can be celebrated, but may be criticized as well. If 51 percent of the people are happy and 49 percent are not, is it ok for the minority to be completely left out to dry? As he continues in his work, “Actions are approved when they are such as to promote happiness, or pleasure, and disapproved of when they have a tendency to cause unhappiness, or pain” (Driver section 2.) This also took …show more content…
For example, the axe murderer example illustrates this perfectly. If someone with an axe is coming to look for your friend and he asks where your friend is, it is not ok to lie under Kant’s perspective. That friend has more value to you than other people, like the axe murderer. So following Kant’s theory of ethics in this instance would lead to more sadness and the unnecessary blood shed of your friend. Kant says that if in that instance you lie, and the murderer then still stumbles upon your friend, then you are responsible for anything that happens. But how can someone be responsible for the behavior of the man with the axe? We are not responsible and that is where I believe Kant’s argument falls flat. Kant also states that, “Moderation in the affections and passions, self-control and calm deliberation are not only good in many respects…” (Kant excerpt 16) The caveat in that statement is that he believes humans should always behave in that manner and should take in consideration of their own self interests. The only problem with that is that a majority of the population already take themselves into account before they make a decision and don’t follow a strict set of guidelines that might not be beneficial to them and lead to less utility in the
While that is the basics of utilitarian ethics, Bentham does go on to elaborate further on the criterion one must apply to pleasure in order to determine its value.
In contrast to the consequentialist focus of utilitarianism, Kant was more focused on intent and action itself. This leads into one of Kantian ethics main ideals; you mustn’t treat another human being as a means to an end. Kant’s Categorical Imperative (CI) is a deontological theory, which relied heavily on his belief that humans are all capable of reason in the same manner, on the same level (A Brief Summary of Kant 's Categorical Imperative, 2012). Kant recognized 2 kinds of moral ‘imperatives’, a hypothetical imperative (what must be done to achieve a desired result) and Categorical imperatives (how one must act irrespective of one’s end goal/desires). For Kant, all moral duties were considered to be categorical, and should apply to everyone universally. Kant believes that truthfulness is the formal duty of everyone, regardless of what disadvantage it may cause to yourself or another (Kant, 1994). He illustrates this quite well by using his categorical imperative, saying that if all people were to lie, then all contracts and laws would lose their legitimacy. Kant also went on to point out that if we were to lie, even from a place of good intention, it is impossible to control the outcome(s) and we may be responsible for whatever comes from it (Kant, 1994). However if we were to tell the truth then we have upheld our duty and as such can shoulder no blame for any consequences.
As the founder of utilitarianism, Bentham believes that an act is considered “just” if it produces the most happiness and the least pain for the greatest number of people affected directly, or indirectly by that action. For Bentham, happiness means giving sovereignty to pleasure over pain. Contrarily, Kant proposes that only duty and rules should dictate our actions, as the outcome is beyond our control. To Kant the only thing that matters is good will. His theory suggests that an action is either “just” or “unjust” regardless of the consequences of that same action. Bentham tried to attain his theory through hedonism and Kant his through universal maxims, neither theory beneficial to everyone. In addition, Jeremy Bentham’s theory is flawed because it only considers the most happiness caused by a moral action, it neglects minorities. Similarly, Kant fully ignoring the consequences of a moral action is not a worthy idea, because at times, we may have more than one duty or obligation to
Society, as we know it, is only possible through humans acting in accordance with a universal moral code. Because we as humans are rational beings and have free choice, we can make our own decisions, can hold ourselves to a standard that we ourselves set, and can act in accordance with our standards, as well as set standards for our own society. However, these standards must be held, otherwise they hold no meaning. Kant uses a black and white tactic, in order to determine which actions are moral and immoral. However, Kant’s downfall is his strength. The black and white tactic makes everything very clear, but it lacks the complexity needed to handle more sophisticated problems and decisions. Black and white does not take into account all the shades of gray between, and Kant needs to take into account all the shades of factors that impact human decision-making.
Jeremy Bentham was one of the first philosophers to present a fully developed system of utilitarianism. He thought that we, as humans, should evaluate the consequences of our actions, determine whether each action is morally right or wrong, and tally the pleasure and pain that comes as a result of our actions. Is it right for me to donate to charity? Is it right for me to cheat on my government test? These questions we ask ourselves fall under Bentham’s theory known as act-utilitarianism because it focuses on the consequences of every action we perform. Bentham argues that the “greatest happiness of the greatest number of people” (Bentham) is how we should determine right from wrong. He also believed “mankind is under the
Bentham argues that humans only commit actions on the bases of utility, which is the desire to enjoy happiness and prevent pain. He is certain that utility alone governs human morality and that the principles of utilitarianism are morally correct for every situation. Bentham claims that the purpose of morality is to increase the happiness of society and every action should aim to benefit the greatest number. He argues that without attaining happiness for the greatest number, society becomes dysfunction. In Bentham’s perfect utilitarian society, individuals would put aside their personal desires which cause pain to society as a whole in order to promote universal happiness. Bentham, strongly suggests that utilitarianism has no uncertainties, period. After objective analysis under Utilitarianism, before committing any action an individual must first examine the happiness which can be extracted from the action and the potential harms that it can cause, if the action yields more pain to the greatest number it is immoral. Bentham concludes that pain can’t yield happiness and that for an action to be morally correct it must
Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.
John Stuart Mill adds more arguments to Bentham’s view of Utilitarianism, which are important factors to consider when discussing this topic. Utilitarianism is the idea to promote the greatest happiness to the general society as opposed to oneself (Mill, 114). Each pleasure is said to have its own difference in quality, so people are able to make the choice between two pleasures (115). Mill believes mental pleasures reign more important than bodily pleasures seeing that bodily pleasures are seen as inferior to the greater good (115). It takes a higher grade of pleasures to make a human satisfied and pleased. “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (116). An important factor for choosing higher pleasures over inferior pleasures is that you only have time for one pleasure and if you chose the inferior pleasure it will be wasted (117). However the standards of what is right and wrong are not decided by the person’s own happiness but the happiness of everyone who is concerned in the decision (117). Being a Utilitarian forces you to stay an
In the beginning of “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” written by Bentham himself he first starts off by saying, “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure” This is the basis of what the principle of utility is all about. Pain and pleasure are what dictate or motivate us to do everything in life. Bentham believes that a decision can be made depending on how much pain and/or pleasure it will bring to the greatest amount of people. So if a decision brings more pain than pleasure to society as a whole it is deemed as wrong and if a decision brings more pleasure than pain it is deemed as a worthy thing to do. Bentham states, “to prevent mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered: if that party be the community in general, then the happiness of the community: if a particular individual, then the happiness of that individual.” The way
Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.
Another key strength to the theory is the concentration on motivation. The motive for which an individual acts has more validity then the unknown consequences that lie ahead. According to Kant we are motivated by our duty, and we know that motivation comes from an internal source. Motive provides substance to personal decisions and choices that are made. In order to feel a duty to react or act in a certain manner, an individual uses internal reasoning when making decisions. As moral agents who have the ability to reason Kant’s theory is right on the target. We will consciously make decisions by the things or factors that we are motivated by. I feel that it is safe to say that most people actions are guided by motives whether they are morally correct or not.
Bentham’s concern was upon utilitarianism which assumes the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers. He believes that individuals weigh the probabilities of present and future pleasures against those of present and future pain (Postema, 1998).
According to Bentham, all human beings are governed by two sovereign aspects: Pleasure and pain while each individual accepts the fact that we desire pleasure and unwilling to encounter pain. Then, he came up with his Principle of utility where:
Another problem with Bentham’s philosophy is that he would not distinguish between pleasure and pain, seemingly defining them as the same thing. In my opinion pleasure is generally a momentary thing whilst happiness is a more lasting and consistent thing. One might gain pleasure from sitting watching TV all day long. However in doing he is missing work and so will end up with no job and no money to support himself (and pay his TV licence!) and will presumably be left unhappy. So, as demonstrated by this example, pleasure is not necessarily happiness and Bentham, was mistaken to define them together
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)