Sign in or 
Share this
Kant, Mill and Aristotle Notes
Below you will find my notes for "the big 3", Aristotle, Kant, Mill (not necessarily in the order).
Introducing Utilitarianism
This module will cover the more theoretical components of ethical theory. By that I mean that the following chapters try to define the ultimate ethical principles that provide the foundation for all specific moral judgements about specific cases. What are the ultimate principles of ethics and how do we argue in favor of them?
Two main divisions can be seen in the material covered in the text. One type of philosopher believes that moral worth should be determined by what is going on inside of the person performing the actions under scrutiny – individual intentions and reasons for action. Call this “Internalism”. The other type of philosopher believes that moral worth should be determined by the external consequences of a person’s behavior on the rest of the world. What happened as a result of the action. Call this “Externalism”.
You might say that both are true. However, what then would we say about a situation where a person has good intentions (e.g., give roses to Sam to make him feel better), but the outcome is bad (e.g., Sam is deathly allergic to roses and dies on the spot). Did the person who gave roses to Sam do something good or bad. That depends on whether you are an Internalist or Externalist. See if you can determine which of the philosophers below fits into which category. More importantly, who is right?
The Greatest Happiness Principle
Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number
This deceptively simply theory is very commonsensical, asserting that the good person is the one that contributes to the overall well being of society, or of those affected by the action. Most of us have this in mind to some agree when we face moral situations. However, as the chapter shows, this seemingly simple theory becomes quite complex and faces major objections.
1. Hedonistic Consequentialism: Results are what matter!
Utilitarianism is a consequence based moral theory. Actions are evaluated on the basis of their consequences. However, this leaves undefined what aspects of the consequences matter. For example, every time I move my body I slightly change the distribution of energy in the world. But that consequence of my behavior cannot be the one that matters morally. Nor are the changes in color patters in the world that result from my choice of clothing. Which aspect of the consequences of behavior matter?
Utilitarians clearly state that the pain and pleasure created by an action are the consequences that matter and are what the action will be judged by. Moral judgement should focus on how much pain and how pleasure an act creates for how many people. We call this “hedonistic consequentialism” because the aspect of the consequences that matter are hedonic, relating to pain and pleasure
The Intrinsic Good
2. The Intrinsic Good: Pleasure
Utilitarians argue that pleasure is the only thing that is valued purely for its own sake. Many things, like money, power and education, are valued because they lead to pleasure even if they are not themselves pleasurable. These are good because they are instruments for achieving pleasure, and are called “instrumental goods”. But what is valued solely for what it is, not for what it brings about? This would be where the question “why do you want that?” would no longer apply. Utilitarians say pleasure is the answer. Why would you want pleasure? What is good about pleasure? Odd questions indeed. Utilitarians go on to equate pleasure and happiness, and claim that these are the only things that humans really value for their own sake.
The Principle of Utility
3. The Principle of Utility
This principle is the cornerstone of the Utilitarian philosophy. It has been put in various ways, which different slightly in important ways. The basic principle states: A person’s (P) action action (A) is good is if (A) creates more utility than the alternative actions (B,C,D,E) that we available to (P) at the time. In other words, the good act is the one which brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Some disagreement has arisen over the question of whether it should be the total amount of happiness that matters, or whether it should the distribution and allocation of happiness that matters. What if we could make one person unbelievably happy (score 100), leaving 9 with none, or we could make 10 people just a little bit happy (1 pt. Each)? The first act creates more overall happiness than the second, but the second allocates happiness in a more fair pattern. This is still a debate amongst philosophers in this area.
Objections and Replies
Objections And Counter-Objections
Jeremy Bentham first formulated Utilitarianism. Soon after, a number of criticisms of the theory were voiced from philosophers unpersuaded of his theory. A few of these are described below. J.S. Mill tries to answer these objections in the essay for this chapter. The reading is a bit tough, but focus on the parts that make sense.
a. Doctrine of Swine
The first objection Mill addresses is that, by reducing human happiness to mere pleasure, Utilitariansim is a theory just as fit for pigs (swine) as for humans. Human happiness is not any different than the happiness of a pig slopping around in the mud and at the trough. But this cannot be right people said. Human beings have higher cognitive faculties than pigs like reason and emotion, and these higher faculties must be part of human happiness. Happiness for humans is not just physical pleasure.
Mill’s response is ingenious. He said the the folks who raise this objection have the wrong idea of ‘pleasure’. There are many forms of pleasure. Sure some are physical, but there are also pleasures that relate to emotional and rational capacities of man. Like friendship and courage (emotion) and knowledge and wisdom (rational). On this expanded view of pleasure, the Utilitarian can encompass the higher faculties of human beings and still say that happiness pleasure. Mill went further to claim that the rational and emotional pleasures are superior to the physical pleasures. This is his point in discussing Socrates.
Too High For Humanity?
Too High For Humanity
Some say that the Utilitarian theory is too demanding for human beings, and our limited minds. To actually calculate the pain and pleasure an action creates for everyone affected by an action, and to compare that to all the alternative possibilities is demanding too much. The time for action would have passed us by.
The Utilitarian answer is that, in fact, they do not REQUIRE that anyone calculate the consequences, just that they must act in accordance with the best consequences. It’s like the difference between following the law unknowingly, and following the law because you are thinking about the law before you act. Utilitarianism, being a consequentialist theory, is like the first example not the second. It ultimately does not matter what you are thinking about when you act, just what you end up producing as a result.
The One And The Many
Sacrificing the One For The Many
This is the most serious objection. It turns out that the happiness of the many can often come about by sacrificing the rights of the few. Consider a Utitlitarian doctor who has 5 deathly ill patients and one healthy patient. As a Utilitarian, he should use the one healthy patient for parts to save the lives of the five deathly ill patients. That would mean five people saved and one dead, as compared to 5 dead and one saved. The numbers are clear. Doesn’t the utilitarian have to admit that their theory requires killing the healthy patient to save the others? But this is a violation of individual rights. This cannot be the right thing to do. There are countless examples of this kind. They all speak to the problem that Utilitarianism allows for the happiness of the many to come at the expense of a few. Major problem
Rule vs. Act
Rule Utilitarianism vs. Act Utlitarianism
Toward the end of the chapter the difference between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism is introduced. It’s somewhat complex, but the idea is that in the latter we should ask if utility is maximized by everyone following a certain rule, as opposed to one single act. In the doctor case, it would not maximize utility if every doctor acted this way because it would bring about distrust in the medical field and perhaps the breakdown of the entire institution. This could be one way to deal with the objection.
Introducing Utilitarianism
This module will cover the more theoretical components of ethical theory. By that I mean that the following chapters try to define the ultimate ethical principles that provide the foundation for all specific moral judgements about specific cases. What are the ultimate principles of ethics and how do we argue in favor of them?
Two main divisions can be seen in the material covered in the text. One type of philosopher believes that moral worth should be determined by what is going on inside of the person performing the actions under scrutiny – individual intentions and reasons for action. Call this “Internalism”. The other type of philosopher believes that moral worth should be determined by the external consequences of a person’s behavior on the rest of the world. What happened as a result of the action. Call this “Externalism”.
You might say that both are true. However, what then would we say about a situation where a person has good intentions (e.g., give roses to Sam to make him feel better), but the outcome is bad (e.g., Sam is deathly allergic to roses and dies on the spot). Did the person who gave roses to Sam do something good or bad. That depends on whether you are an Internalist or Externalist. See if you can determine which of the philosophers below fits into which category. More importantly, who is right?
The Greatest Happiness Principle
Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number
This deceptively simply theory is very commonsensical, asserting that the good person is the one that contributes to the overall well being of society, or of those affected by the action. Most of us have this in mind to some agree when we face moral situations. However, as the chapter shows, this seemingly simple theory becomes quite complex and faces major objections.
1. Hedonistic Consequentialism: Results are what matter!
Utilitarianism is a consequence based moral theory. Actions are evaluated on the basis of their consequences. However, this leaves undefined what aspects of the consequences matter. For example, every time I move my body I slightly change the distribution of energy in the world. But that consequence of my behavior cannot be the one that matters morally. Nor are the changes in color patters in the world that result from my choice of clothing. Which aspect of the consequences of behavior matter?
Utilitarians clearly state that the pain and pleasure created by an action are the consequences that matter and are what the action will be judged by. Moral judgement should focus on how much pain and how pleasure an act creates for how many people. We call this “hedonistic consequentialism” because the aspect of the consequences that matter are hedonic, relating to pain and pleasure
The Intrinsic Good
2. The Intrinsic Good: Pleasure
Utilitarians argue that pleasure is the only thing that is valued purely for its own sake. Many things, like money, power and education, are valued because they lead to pleasure even if they are not themselves pleasurable. These are good because they are instruments for achieving pleasure, and are called “instrumental goods”. But what is valued solely for what it is, not for what it brings about? This would be where the question “why do you want that?” would no longer apply. Utilitarians say pleasure is the answer. Why would you want pleasure? What is good about pleasure? Odd questions indeed. Utilitarians go on to equate pleasure and happiness, and claim that these are the only things that humans really value for their own sake.
The Principle of Utility
3. The Principle of Utility
This principle is the cornerstone of the Utilitarian philosophy. It has been put in various ways, which different slightly in important ways. The basic principle states: A person’s (P) action action (A) is good is if (A) creates more utility than the alternative actions (B,C,D,E) that we available to (P) at the time. In other words, the good act is the one which brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Some disagreement has arisen over the question of whether it should be the total amount of happiness that matters, or whether it should the distribution and allocation of happiness that matters. What if we could make one person unbelievably happy (score 100), leaving 9 with none, or we could make 10 people just a little bit happy (1 pt. Each)? The first act creates more overall happiness than the second, but the second allocates happiness in a more fair pattern. This is still a debate amongst philosophers in this area.
Objections and Replies
Objections And Counter-Objections
Jeremy Bentham first formulated Utilitarianism. Soon after, a number of criticisms of the theory were voiced from philosophers unpersuaded of his theory. A few of these are described below. J.S. Mill tries to answer these objections in the essay for this chapter. The reading is a bit tough, but focus on the parts that make sense.
a. Doctrine of Swine
The first objection Mill addresses is that, by reducing human happiness to mere pleasure, Utilitariansim is a theory just as fit for pigs (swine) as for humans. Human happiness is not any different than the happiness of a pig slopping around in the mud and at the trough. But this cannot be right people said. Human beings have higher cognitive faculties than pigs like reason and emotion, and these higher faculties must be part of human happiness. Happiness for humans is not just physical pleasure.
Mill’s response is ingenious. He said the the folks who raise this objection have the wrong idea of ‘pleasure’. There are many forms of pleasure. Sure some are physical, but there are also pleasures that relate to emotional and rational capacities of man. Like friendship and courage (emotion) and knowledge and wisdom (rational). On this expanded view of pleasure, the Utilitarian can encompass the higher faculties of human beings and still say that happiness pleasure. Mill went further to claim that the rational and emotional pleasures are superior to the physical pleasures. This is his point in discussing Socrates.
Too High For Humanity?
Too High For Humanity
Some say that the Utilitarian theory is too demanding for human beings, and our limited minds. To actually calculate the pain and pleasure an action creates for everyone affected by an action, and to compare that to all the alternative possibilities is demanding too much. The time for action would have passed us by.
The Utilitarian answer is that, in fact, they do not REQUIRE that anyone calculate the consequences, just that they must act in accordance with the best consequences. It’s like the difference between following the law unknowingly, and following the law because you are thinking about the law before you act. Utilitarianism, being a consequentialist theory, is like the first example not the second. It ultimately does not matter what you are thinking about when you act, just what you end up producing as a result.
The One And The Many
Sacrificing the One For The Many
This is the most serious objection. It turns out that the happiness of the many can often come about by sacrificing the rights of the few. Consider a Utitlitarian doctor who has 5 deathly ill patients and one healthy patient. As a Utilitarian, he should use the one healthy patient for parts to save the lives of the five deathly ill patients. That would mean five people saved and one dead, as compared to 5 dead and one saved. The numbers are clear. Doesn’t the utilitarian have to admit that their theory requires killing the healthy patient to save the others? But this is a violation of individual rights. This cannot be the right thing to do. There are countless examples of this kind. They all speak to the problem that Utilitarianism allows for the happiness of the many to come at the expense of a few. Major problem
Rule vs. Act
Rule Utilitarianism vs. Act Utlitarianism
Toward the end of the chapter the difference between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism is introduced. It’s somewhat complex, but the idea is that in the latter we should ask if utility is maximized by everyone following a certain rule, as opposed to one single act. In the doctor case, it would not maximize utility if every doctor acted this way because it would bring about distrust in the medical field and perhaps the breakdown of the entire institution. This could be one way to deal with the objection.
Aristotle: Morality and the Virtues
You can listen to an audio book HERE
Aristotle argued that morality should be based on the concepts of virtue and vice, not right and wrong. The former pair are attributes of character, the latter pair are attributes of particular actions. Aristotle believed that moral character is what matters most; the enduring qualities, dispositions and propensities of a person. Specific actions reveal our deeper character, but they are only the surface. Aristotle’s ethical theory reaches deeper into our character.You can listen to an audio book HERE
The Supreme Good
There must be a supreme good
Aristotle argued that if anything is good, there must be a supreme good. Clearly there are a number of good things, but many of them are only thought good because they lead to other good things (i.e., lifting heavy weights, eating healthy, studying). These conditional goods can only exist if there is an unconditional good from which they inherit their goodness. The ultimate good is the source of the goodness of all good things. It must exist, but what is it? This is the main question of ethics according to Aristotle.
The Highest Good
The highest human good is the aim of human life
Since we are dealing with ethics, we want to know what the highest human good is. This will be the ultimate aim of human life, achieving the highest human good. So we know that we will evaluate a human life on the extent to which it approaches the highest human good. This sounds reasonable, but we still do not know the content of the highest human good.
Happiness
Happiness is the highest human good
Aristotle argues that Happiness is clearly the highest human good. It only makes sense to see something as good if it contributes to happiness, and in the absence of any connection to happiness there is no reason to see something as good. Moreover, nothing is better than happiness. We can appreciate this by seeing the peculiarity in the question “Why would you pursue happiness?”. This question asks us to link happiness to some higher value that would provide the point of pursuing happiness. But we really cannot answer that question, happiness is the end of life. It is what bestows value on all other things in human life, but is not itself given value by anything higher. Happiness is the highest human good.
The Function Of Man
What is Happiness: The Function Argument
We are now lead to the question: What is Happiness? While people are agreed that happiness is the highest human good, there is considerable disagreement over what happiness actually is. Aristotle reminds us that we know this much: Happiness = the highest human good. If we delve further into ‘the highest human good’ then we will learn more about happiness, since they are one and the same.
That is precisely what he does in the famous Function Argument. Aristotle notes that with most things (x) we define the good of (x) in terms of the function of (x). Consider a knife. A good knife is one which performs the function of knives, cutting, and performs that function well. Good knives cut well, cutting being the function of knives. The same is true of carberators, chairs, doors, livers, eyes, hearts, and almost everything,
This suggests that a good human will be defined in terms of the function of the human. If we can discern the function of man we will know the good of man, and thus will know what human happiness is. Aristotle concludes that the function of man must reside in the exercise of his rational capacities. Our function is to reason. To perform this function well is to deliberate well about what to aim for in life and about the best means to achieving these ends. Rational practical thinking that guides behavior toward our goals is the kind of life Aristotle concluded was the highest. That is our function
Acquiring Virtue
Habituation and the acquisition of virtue
How do we achieve virtue? Aristotle argued that moral virtue cannot be taught from books, nor is it inherited. He argued that it must be ingrained into us through ‘habituation’. Being made to behave in a certain way as a child will develop habits of behavior that become automatic in time. Good parents create good habits in their children, even before the children know why this is the right way to behave. Later they will know why and will be able to direct their own virtuous behavior. This is how we acquire virtue.
Virtue as a Mean
The Doctrine of the mean
But one last question remains. At this point, we know that if we perform virtuous actions then we will develop a virtuous character, and developing a virtuous character is the highest human good, and thus is happiness. But, going to the first point, how do we determine what the virtuous behavior is? Without this we cannot get started.
Here Aristotle introduced the Doctrine of the Mean. Aristotle argued that virtue is always a mean between two extremes. Interestingly, he explains this in terms of emotions. Virtue is a moderate reaction to emotion. Consider fear: Too much fear results in cowardice, too little fear makes one foolhardy. Just the right response to fear is Courage. Aristotle argued that this middle road held true for all emotions.
We can now define the virtuous action as the one which hits the mean between two extremes. The job of reason is to continuously determine where that mean exists in new situations. As we become more and more familiar with the middle, or moderate, path we will develop the habit of moderate behavior. That is when we develop virtue of character, achieve the highest human good, and approach happiness.
Find my audio reviews of Kant and Aristotle HERE: Go to 'audio study guides' to the right of the page and then scroll to Aristotle and Kant toward the bottom.
Immanuel Kant
Deontology
The famous philosopher Immanual Kant developed a moral theory often referred to as Deontological Ethics. This is motivation based moral theory. Kant created a brilliant system to judge motivations in a rational structure. The reading can be very difficult. Kant is considered one of the most difficult authors to read EVER. So hang in there.
The Will as the determinant of moral worth
Kant clearly believed that it is the will behind an action that determines the moral worth of the action itself. The consequences of actions are largely beyond our control, as many factors determine outcomes of actions. However, we are the maker of our own motivations, so that is where we should be judged. Motivations are the mark of our character.
The intrinsic good: The Good Will
Opposing Utilitarianism, Kant argues that Happiness and pleasure are not intrinsically good. The happiness of a killer or molestor is not good. Only the happiness of a good person is a good thing. Furthermore, you can never add ‘goodness of will’ to a situation and make the situation worse. Whereas, if you add intelligence and perseverance to an evil will, you make things worse because evil is empowered. The good will is the only that is good without qualification and is never bad.
The next step is to determine a criterion for the goodness of the will. That will give us the answers to questions about goodness of actions.
Categorical Imperatives vs. Hypothetical Imperatives
Kant distinguishes between two forms of commands. Human beings are governed by commands, either those of others or the commands we give ourselves. But commands, or imperatives, come in two varieties. Hypothetical imperatives command us do x in order to achieve y, assuming that we want y. Categorical Imperatives simply command us to do x, regardless of what we want.
What kind of commands does the good will follow? Here Kant relies on his belief that morality must be universal, not changing like the wind. So the principles that the good will follows must be universally applicable to all human beings. Thus, and this
Reason and the Universality of Morality
Kant argued that morality had to be Universal applicable to every person. In fact he said that if there are no universal moral principles, then there is no morality. However, he believed that there were universal principles to be discovered; they are to be found in Reason. The capacity to reason is what distinguishes human beings from all other beings, thus every human being has he capacity to reason. Kant’s insight was that if he can show that there are moral principles that are based only on reason these principles will apply universally to every human being. This is precisely what he did with the Categorical Imperative.
Two Forms of the Categorical Imperative
The heart of Kant’s moral theory is the Categorical Imperative(CI). Being an ‘imperative’, it is a command, being ‘categorical’ it applies to all members of the category ‘person’. The Categorical Imperative determines our universal moral obligations. Kant had five formulations, the main two of which are below.
CI-1: Act only on that maxim that you can at same time will be to a universal law of nature.
CI-2: Treat Humanity, whether in your own person or the person of another, always as an end in itself and never merely as a means.
These principles can be complicated, so you should read the Introduction to the Kant chapter closely. CI-1 is called the Universal Law formulation. It requires that any moral principle must be one that we could CONSISTENTLY will that every one follow. This is slightly different from the Golden Rule, because Kant requires consistency, the Golden Rule (Do unto others…) is based on what we would want done.
CI-2 requires us not to use other people. People are not things, they are categorically different. As such, it is always immoral to treat a person in the manner in which we treat mere objects. Objects are valuable in so far as we use them, they have ‘use value’. But humanity has intrinsic value. To properly respect humanity, to treat it as an end in itself, we must not interfere with the will of other people. This is primarily done when we deceive or coerce others.
The famous philosopher Immanual Kant developed a moral theory often referred to as Deontological Ethics. This is motivation based moral theory. Kant created a brilliant system to judge motivations in a rational structure. The reading can be very difficult. Kant is considered one of the most difficult authors to read EVER. So hang in there.
The Will as the determinant of moral worth
Kant clearly believed that it is the will behind an action that determines the moral worth of the action itself. The consequences of actions are largely beyond our control, as many factors determine outcomes of actions. However, we are the maker of our own motivations, so that is where we should be judged. Motivations are the mark of our character.
The intrinsic good: The Good Will
Opposing Utilitarianism, Kant argues that Happiness and pleasure are not intrinsically good. The happiness of a killer or molestor is not good. Only the happiness of a good person is a good thing. Furthermore, you can never add ‘goodness of will’ to a situation and make the situation worse. Whereas, if you add intelligence and perseverance to an evil will, you make things worse because evil is empowered. The good will is the only that is good without qualification and is never bad.
The next step is to determine a criterion for the goodness of the will. That will give us the answers to questions about goodness of actions.
Categorical Imperatives vs. Hypothetical Imperatives
Kant distinguishes between two forms of commands. Human beings are governed by commands, either those of others or the commands we give ourselves. But commands, or imperatives, come in two varieties. Hypothetical imperatives command us do x in order to achieve y, assuming that we want y. Categorical Imperatives simply command us to do x, regardless of what we want.
What kind of commands does the good will follow? Here Kant relies on his belief that morality must be universal, not changing like the wind. So the principles that the good will follows must be universally applicable to all human beings. Thus, and this
Reason and the Universality of Morality
Kant argued that morality had to be Universal applicable to every person. In fact he said that if there are no universal moral principles, then there is no morality. However, he believed that there were universal principles to be discovered; they are to be found in Reason. The capacity to reason is what distinguishes human beings from all other beings, thus every human being has he capacity to reason. Kant’s insight was that if he can show that there are moral principles that are based only on reason these principles will apply universally to every human being. This is precisely what he did with the Categorical Imperative.
Two Forms of the Categorical Imperative
The heart of Kant’s moral theory is the Categorical Imperative(CI). Being an ‘imperative’, it is a command, being ‘categorical’ it applies to all members of the category ‘person’. The Categorical Imperative determines our universal moral obligations. Kant had five formulations, the main two of which are below.
CI-1: Act only on that maxim that you can at same time will be to a universal law of nature.
CI-2: Treat Humanity, whether in your own person or the person of another, always as an end in itself and never merely as a means.
These principles can be complicated, so you should read the Introduction to the Kant chapter closely. CI-1 is called the Universal Law formulation. It requires that any moral principle must be one that we could CONSISTENTLY will that every one follow. This is slightly different from the Golden Rule, because Kant requires consistency, the Golden Rule (Do unto others…) is based on what we would want done.
CI-2 requires us not to use other people. People are not things, they are categorically different. As such, it is always immoral to treat a person in the manner in which we treat mere objects. Objects are valuable in so far as we use them, they have ‘use value’. But humanity has intrinsic value. To properly respect humanity, to treat it as an end in itself, we must not interfere with the will of other people. This is primarily done when we deceive or coerce others.
arete |
Latest page update: made by arete
, Jun 25 2009, 12:15 PM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by arete
18 words added 4 words deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonymous | Which is more important to moral thought -- good will (Kant) or ha | 0 | Mar 12 2012, 11:36 PM EDT by Anonymous | ||
|
|
Thread started: Mar 12 2012, 11:36 PM EDT
Watch
what`s your opinion about this
|
||||
Showing 1 of 1 threads for this page
