According to a theory of utilitarianism developed by John Stuart Mill, the actions of people are categorized as good or bad based on their consequences on the person and society.
An individual will always decide to take an action that will give him maximum happiness in terms of the benefits he will derive from the action.
His/her main objective in making the choice is the maximum exploitation of the available chances to get the best possible pleasure he/she can get from the specific action.
This may be done with the interest of the society at heart where, the person wants to improve the well being of everyone else in the community (Bentham, 1987).
An example is someone who takes the initiative to build a public utility like a road, church or school. The project is exclusively undertaken for the benefit of every child who is born in that society regardless of the time of birth or place of bath, so long as he/she can access the school.
The benefit in this case is unlimited to everyone but the efforts where from someone who took the decision alone.
In the case of marijuana legalization; this theory may consider it as wrong, due to the challenges and bad consequences that it may bring to society like increasing insanity among most users and destroying families.
In the egoism perspective, the individuals actions are always decided based on personal interest in the subject matter. As a result, the person will only make a choice depending on how much he/she will benefit from the action without caring for the interest of the other people.
In this case, the self interest of a single individual may be pursued even at the expense of the society. From this perspective, the legalization of Marijuana smoking is justified as the society does not matter (Bentham, 1987).
On the other hand, the use of natural law theory advocates for the taking of action by someone based on his natural human reasoning. The decision on a certain aspect in life will be taken based in the logic behind the action, which is assumed to be the natural course of action by the person.
In this case, the individual makes his choices depending on what he/she thinks is best for him, the concept considers the freedom of the person to choose so long as she/he has achieved the age of majority.
According to this theory, an adult person is assumed to be capable of reasoning and considering all the positive and negative aspects of an action before making his choice.
The ethical theory that best represents my opinion is the application of natural law. From this perspective, we look at the benefits of the subject in question; legalizing marijuana use.
It should never be legalized because logically, if we consider the disadvantages of its use to the individual and the society. There are many disadvantages based on the consequences that may come with its use such as the influence it may have on the youths in schools and at home.
The society should not risk allowing individuals to have a few hours of being high, which will badly influence the whole society whether directly or indirectly for a long time. I think it is better if marijuana is not legalized (Virtue, 2006).
References
Bentham, J. (1987). Utilitarianism and Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mill, S. J. (2002). Utilitarianism. Cambridge: Hacket Publishing Company Inc.
Virtue, D. (2006). Divine Magic. London. Hay House Inc.
The play Alls Well That Ends Well by William Shakespeare is a wonderful juxtaposition of John Stuart Mills Act Utilitarianism and the social contract theory by Hobbes. The main aspects of these two theories are reflected in the attributes of characters like Helena and Bertram. While Helena represented the lower class of the society and believed in the Utilitarianism values to the road of success, Bertram was much inclined towards the elements of social contract theory and its application.
Act Utilitarianism and Helena
John Stuart Mills Act Utilitarianism represents all ethical theories where the goal is the maximization of some measure of goodness. These are outcome-oriented ethics where goodness is measured by its results. In other words, Utilitarianism is a doctrine that confirms whether or not actions have been beneficial to a large group, once applied. It can be stated that identification of criminal before the crime is committed is a part of Act Utilitarianism in the sense that the assumption of a crime is presumably error-free. This method is utilized in subculture identification in the context of criminal justice. A violent subculture is a subculture in a location that teaches its members and others to adapt to the problems of life through violent methods. These subcultures stress violence as it settles disputes and raises a group members prestige in the subculture. Violence shows dominance and power. One of the reasons for violent subcultures is the illegitimate and legitimate opportunity structure. The legitimate opportunity structure provides individuals with the means of obtaining status and success in society through appropriate channels such as education and hard work. (Williamson, 97-107) While this structure is ideal, it is not available for all individuals in society, especially those in violent subcultures, due to poor education, poverty, and other societal problems. This is the context of Helena and her persuasion for Bertram is the end goal of her life and she could undertake any method to reach her goal.
Her position in society is conveyed by his dialogue:
The Count Rousillon cannot be my brother: I am from humble, he from the honored name; No note upon my parents, his all noble: My master, my dear lord he is; and I His servant lives, and will his vassal die: He must not be my brother. (Shakespeare, 1)
However, she must take any means possible to marry him and that includes fraud. Similarly, some of the positive ways that the Mills Act Utilitarianism theory has benefited criminology has been through the development of new theories that do not discriminate against others and do not support lawful inhumane behaviors. Another positive benefit has been the development of a variety of social programs to benefits criminals. These social programs are designed to intervene before an individual develops deviant behaviors that would make him a criminal and to rehabilitate those criminals who have already participated in deviant behaviors. By creating more social programs, society is saying that there is hope for criminals. They are not doomed to be labeled criminals forever. With the proper education and rehabilitation and job training, a criminal can leave the judicial system for a final time and be a productive member of society. (Habermas, 122) Those programs that are aimed at preventing a person from becoming a criminal work at teaching individuals what kinds of deviant behaviors are unacceptable, and giving them resources to use in situations in which they would most likely turn to deviant behaviors as a way to solve a problem thus the acts of Helena can be justified.
On the other hand, the Act Utilitarianism theory also has had a somewhat negative effect on our society. People still view those who have participated in deviant behaviors as criminals, and people on an individual basis do discriminate against them. (Williamson, 97-107) Most criminals are required to report their past deviant behavior on job applications, and in the United States, sex offenders are required to register themselves and their residence with the state and inform the state if they move. This information is then published on the internet, making it accessible to anyone. This kind of labeling is detrimental to an individual who is trying to overcome his or her past but is continually stigmatized by the views others place upon them because of their previous actions. Most likely labeling them will lead to further deviant behaviors. (Habermas, 134) However, from Helenas point of view, she was justified as there was this promise,
Helen, you might be my daughter-in-law: God shield you mean it not! daughter and mother So strive upon your pulse. What, pale again? My fear hath catchd your fondness: now I see The mystery of your loneliness, and find Your salt tears head: now to all sense tis gross You love my son; invention is ashamed (Shakespeare, 1)
Social contact theory and Bertram
Bertram was completely reluctant about marrying Helena and the main reason was her low birth. The impossible condition:
When thou canst get the ring upon my finger which never shall come off, and show me a child begotten of thy body that I am father to, then call me husband: but in such a then I write a never. This is a dreadful sentence. (Shakespeare, 1)
This was enough to prove this intention. The aspect of social contract theory based on a convincing justification for political authority can be stated as an orientation. Here it is has been observed that people will respect the fact that other may have different perspective and opinions. In this stage, the choices made by each individual are not judged as correct or wrong. Here the rules and regulations, as well as the law, are social guidelines rather than strict dictums. Here is what is called democracy. (Hobbes, 25)
Hobbes believed that man as an individual or community cannot be trusted and thus should be kept on constant vigil. He said these concerning his Social Contract. His point in this statement is that everyone must take their steps one at a time. Everything should be done carefully at the right time and in the right places so that it will be meaningful and productive. His writings made a divergence in different parts of the world. He became popular and famous with the help of these writings. After all, logic and rationality was not the only answer to living a better life. There is something better from thinking and reasoning. With these lines, there is a realization about the effects of his situation. The philosopher witnessed his journey and this journey made him believed that living is not always a form of reasoning and logic and thus it is important to base on political authority. As it is, sometimes, as humans we need to rest our minds for more important things to think of. To provide this opportunity it is necessary to possess a convincing political authority. (Hobbes, 167)
Hobbes had noticed a lot of fundamental differences between human nature and society just as in the case of Helena and Bertram. He believed that humans were better when an individual is in a state of nature. It is the common state of all the other animals and is the condition humans were in long before the beginning of society and civilization itself. The idea of his has often been led to assigning the use of noble savage to him. He, however never used this expression himself and it does not properly present his thinking for the natural goodness of all humankind. His idea concerning natural goodness is complicated and thus, very easily misunderstood.
An informal reading of his work suggests that his ideas do not simply mean that humans in this state of nature always act morally. On the contrary, terms, like wickedness or justice, are merely not applicable to pre-political societies. Humans, there can behave like a ferocious animals. They are nice since they are self-contained and are, thus, are not the focal point to the frailties of the political society. Hobbes viewed society as an artificial entity and thought that the growth of any society, mainly the development of public interdependence, is unfavorable for the welfare of humans and thus there was a constant need for a vigil in the form of political authority. (Hobbes, 39) Thus, the approach of Bertram and Helena fits the conditions of the theory quite well.
However, he realizes that although the power of human love is a driving force, it was not enough to resolve the various social problems and ills. The power of human love could be applied to stop conflicts between individuals but not for the whole nation or the racial groups. Similarly, the goodness of humankind is like the goodness of the animals and not of their virtue, which has been mentioned in The Social Contract. A very extraordinary change in man is produced in the passage, which is from the state of nature to the civil state. Here justice has been substituted for instinct in mans conduct and his actions have been given morality, which they formally lacked. He also instead of listening only to his inclinations consults his reasoning power. Even though being in this state man is deprived of certain advantages he earlier had from nature, he gains a lot, more which develops and stimulates his faculties. His ideas are extended, his feelings are dignified and his entire soul is lifted. (Rosenfeld, 291-319) This was the justification for Bertram and Helena in the end.
However, the advancements in the various fields of knowledge have made the governments more and more powerful letting them squash a persons liberty. In his text, Hobbes creates concepts of equality and personal liberty. He believed, to obey the natural state of man and for the total survival of a state, we continuously need to change our ideas of equality. Poor representation of some citizens, in the interest of the state, is clearly shown as an exit way for leaving the society. This was Hobbes political way to stabilize the inconsistent relations in the self-interest of the people and for the expansion of political freedom. When the minorities leave a state, its survival and the various reasons for creating conflict forever remain unchecked.
In his work, he also pays a lot of attention to shifting individual rights onto the formation of the state. When the state has been created, it should be due to the realization that the different elements humans cannot handle on their own can be handled better by an added centralized power, which is the state. However, Hobbes also believed that the state could fail humans at certain times and it should never enjoy an unequal share of power in comparison to the humans in the previous state of nature. If humans gave up their liberty then it would mean that they are giving up their ability to negotiate with other members of the state. This would be like slavery. (Mclean, 339-351) Thus, there were no alternatives for the two characters of the story and they can be analyzed and evaluated in the light of this principle.
Conclusion
There is also a realization of the fact that life is what we make it. There is no such thing as a deeper explanation of how man lived and survived during his lifetime. There mere fact of living is that you must live your life to the fullest. All of us need our minds to decide on how our future will be. However, certain things in life sometimes do not need any logician, mathematician, or reasoning aspect of our minds we just need to take the risk and try to take all the opportunities no matter how hard or risky it will be. The most important thing that we should remember was faith. Faith will bring us to our final destination no matter how good or bad it will be it will always be our destiny. This would become a strong force in changing the way of thinking of the people. In this context, it is logical to believe that the basis of a convincing justification for political authority is becoming weak. However, there should be situations where the individualistic approach of a human being should be respected and valued and this can be termed as one such rare occasion where Hobbes allowed independence to the population without the vigil of a system that is based on a convincing justification for political authority. (Hobbes, 187)
However, the theorist builds upon notions of personal liberty and equality discussed in previous writings by Hobbes. Yet for Hobbes, there is less flexibility given for maintaining a state of imperfect equality as in the case of Mill. Following such a belief, the complete survival of a state requires absolute and continuously changing notions of equality, without which a mass exodus from the state might occur. Those citizens who are ill-represented by the interests of other citizens in a state are given a clear exit path for leaving society, one that is encouraged by the state as a whole. This becomes a practical way for Hobbes to balance the conflicting relations of multiple self-interests and stagnation of expanded political freedoms. With the minority leaving the state, its existence and reasons for conflict are left unchecked. Hobbess beliefs avoid a much larger revolution by the lower class of humankind. Hobbes attempts to stave off the downfall of capitalism, which inevitably leads to a Marxist view of society and Mills analysis of the human goal of success. (Mclean, 339-351) Thus it is clear that Bertram and Helena were both induced by the two theories and in the end, justifications could be found through these theories when these theories were applied to their approaches.
Works Cited
Habermas, James. Ethics, Politics and History, from an interview conducted by Jean-Marc Ferry in Philosophy and Social Criticism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1990.
Libertarianism and utilitarianism are contrary to each other. In utilitarianism, people believe that an action that produces happiness is what one should go. Utilitarians do not care whether what they are doing distracts another persons rights. Conversely, in libertarianism, a persons action for happiness should not violate another persons rights. Libertarians values actions that promote fairness and justice in the society unlike, the utilitarian actions that in some cases violates fairness and justice.
Libertarianism and the Government
In libertarianism, the libertarians perceives the government as the one that threatens peoples rights. They rank the government as the greatest threat to human rights. Also, the libertarians do not agree with the idea of governments to pass moral laws.
It is not suitable for the government to dictate the life of an individual. They also disagree with the governments tax process meant for re-distributing purposes. According to the libertarians, taxing an individual to help another person is a way of forcing a person to work for another person.
Libertarians advocate for individuals to stand alone in society. However, they require the government to develop rules that protect individual property, protect an individual from theft, fraud, coercion, and breaching of contracts. A person who breaks societal rules is against his or her right to standing alone and is subject to face charges.
In implementing these rules, the government would be playing an essential role in protecting the rights of a peaceful person from criminals, and foreign aggression. When the government violates these rights, it is playing a criminal role, and therefore, there is no need for a government.
The libertarians advocate for the society to be at liberty in which individuals do not operate under rules that force them to do specific actions. In conclusion, libertarians advocate for a society that the government has limited control or a society where the government does not exist.
Workers Participation
Libertarianism promotes workers participation in various activities that are of their concern at workplaces. Workers can enhance their engagement when they have freedom in the workplace. Freedom allows the managers and workers to make decisions at the workplace together. It is also by allowing freedom at the workplace that the employers can provide safe working environments.
Socialism and capitalism
Employers promote socialism by involving workers in the decision-making process. In libertarian socialism, the factors of production gain control of the public, but respects private property. It also advocates for social organizations not to use coercive forms while handling workers, thus promoting workers relation. Socialism also extends to the market by promoting the owning of economic systems by the public in a market. When the public owns the economic systems, society can control unfair competitions amongst the producers.
Libertarianism is against state capitalism since in state capitalism the government has control over different states economic activities. They view it as a way that the state uses to get profit from citizens. State capitalism is a monopoly in nature denying citizens a free market.
A free market allows people to practice their freedom of consulting prices where supply and demand determine the price. Conversely, state capitalism does not give suppliers and buyers the freedom to choose the price. Free market reduces coercion forms in the market. In conclusion, unlike utilitarianism, libertarianism ensures that there is respect for individuals rights and the promotion of freedom of choice.
Utilitarianism, deontology, egalitarianism and libertarianism are all theories of morality. First, the law of greatest happiness is the main ideology behind utilitarianism. Human beings seek to decrease suffering and maximize happiness. Hence, an action that is correct morally must lead to the greatest possible pleasure. This also implies that actions that cause pain on human beings are morally wrong.
Second, the theory of deontology embraces the concept of duty and adherence to rule. According to the proponents of deontology, actions should fulfill moral duties without caring whether they make people happy, or not. In other words, the theory of deontology holds that duties define right actions, regardless of their consequences.
Third, egalitarianism theory suggests that human beings are all equal in the eyes of God and thus, they should receive similar treatment, regardless of their classes, gender, or other orientations. Fourth, libertarianism emphasizes the need for personal freedom and independence. Aspects such as property rights and patents are highly valued in this theory.
Which of the Theories is Consonant with your World View?
The theory of utilitarianism is consonant with my worldview. Most of its principles such as consideration of the number of happiness recipients and the law of greatest happiness are consistent with my judgments. For instance, if we have two dormitories burning and we just have adequate materials to put off fire in just one dormitory, we should first consider the one with many students. In addition, if we have two consequences and one contains much pleasure than the other, then we should consider the later.
How do you Perceive their Strengths and Possible Weaknesses?
The theories mentioned above have some strengths and possible weaknesses. First, the main strengths of utilitarianism theory include simplicity, explanatory power, clarity and internal coherence (Bykvist 22). The theory explains aspects such as value, alternative actions, well-being and consequences.
Thus, it is a specific moral theory that has apparent inferences for all moral choice solutions, given right information. Besides, the theory consists of just one basic moral principle and therefore does not have the complexity of pluralistic theories, which explain diverse principles.
Therefore, hardly experience conflict since there are no many principles. In addition, the array of actions pointed out by utilitarianism is huge It gives normative conditions of wrongness, or rightness to all alternatives in all choice circumstances, together with new choice circumstances that we had earlier not thought-out as serious likelihoods. Lastly, utilitarianism is rationally coherent (Bykvist 22). Under no circumstance does the theory say that an action is both right and wrong.
On the other hand, utilitariasm has a weakness in that it lacks emotional attachment. For instance, the theory does not address morality from a personal viewpoint. Rather, it addresses issues from the outside. Besides, the theory lacks a clear way of measuring the goodness of a consequence. Hitherto, there lacks a common scale for measuring goodness as the concept is very dynamic.
Second, deontology has strengths in its simplicity and specific nature. It is easy to know whether a person complies with pre-set rules. Such rules are usually specific in regard to conduct. However, deontology does not validate the authority of rules. Besides, deontology is susceptible to incoherence through conflicts and oppositions, since it does not consider consequences of actions.
Third, egalitarianism has clear values about equality and likeable outcomes (Rasmussen 89). However, the idea of equality among persons is not practical considering human history and attitudes of people towards the concept. For instance, if an average egalitarian receives a request to donate his blood to either an ordinary citizen, or a film star, it is obvious that the later will benefit. Besides, the theory does not consider the context for equality (Rasmussen 89).
Lastly, libertarianism has a weakness in that it promotes individual above all other values (Shaw 102). Besides, the theory holds that a person should not forfeit individual freedom in the quest for other values. For instance, decency, empathy, justice, respect, and even survival of the underprivileged should not take precedence over individual freedom I many occasions, this prejudice results in extreme situations.
For instance, if a supermarket catches fire the same time with the house of a rich man, the theory requires firefighters to take care of the rich man first in pursuit of individual rights. In such a circumstance, the value of securing the lives of a crowd of people locked up in a supermarket simply does not count when weighed against slight infractions against the freedom of a wealthy individual.
Do you Sense that there Might be yet Another Way, one that we Have Not Discussed?
We have not discussed about virtual theory. The theory explains that virtues and vices of a person define what is morally right, or wrong. The theory also describes the meaning of living well, for human kind. It considers the result of human existence as eudaimonia. The meaning of eudaimonia is flourishing. That is, human beings wish to live well. However, this theory does not refer to physical happiness, but that of the mind and soul.
Aristotle divides virtues into the intellectual and moral virtues, which correspond to the happiness of the mind and soul. He considers virtue as a moral tendency of the mind, which occurs as voluntary action. Moral virtue controls the actions of the emotional part. On the other hand, the intellectual virtue determines suitable actions for particular feelings. According to the theory, greatest happiness can only come from philosophical reflection.
Works Cited
Bykvist, Krister. Utilitarianism : A Guide for the Perplexed. New York: Continuum, 2010. Print.
Rasmussen, Kasper. Deontology, Responsibility, and Equality. Copenhagen: Dept. of Media, Cognition and Communication, Univ. of Copenhagen, 2005. Print.
Shaw, William H. Business Ethics. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2011. Print.
In the modern world, technology defines the successfulness of any organization, irrespective of the size and the scope of work. Currently, human beings live in the highly connected society whereby information circulation is costless due to the internet, which has made communication easy.
In other words, technology has led to developments in politics, economics, and cultures given the fact individuals are able to share information globally. The ongoing uprisings in the Arab world are attributable to technology since people are in a position to receive and share information easily (Petronio 112).
This has led to ethical issues regarding the viability of technology because governments are misusing it to infringe on the rights of people. This article evaluates the application of utilitarian theory in government since it is noted that many officials are concerned with realizing the best results.
The government is a large organization charged with the role of ensuring citizens achieves their interests in the best way possible. In this case, it has to provide an enabling environment, such as facilitating security, developing the infrastructure, and focusing on equality.
Utilitarianism in Government
Political formations have been applying utilitarianism long before Bentham invented it. Aristippus of Cyrene applied a hedonistic theory of value of life in the 5th century. In the ancient Greece, the ethic of retirement was applied, which was based on utilitarianism whereby government officials were expected to cease work to pave way for the younger generation to realize their economic, social, and political ambitions.
In the modern society, the government applies utilitarianism with the sole purpose of offering an answer to the practical question asking what should be done in society to improve the conditions of living (Baura 14).
While applying the ethical theory, the officials in government seek to act in the best way possible to produce the most satisfying results. In this case, the government has never cares about whether the consequences are positive or negative provided they satisfy the greatest number of people.
In case the government engages in an act to please a few individuals, the consequence would be considered unethical even though it might be viewed as the best. Mill suggested that the act should be in a position to compel an individual to do something instead of simply persuading or exhorting him or her to an act in a particular way.
When considering the consequences of an act, the government is always committed to the theory of intrinsic value meaning an act is believed to be good in itself, as well as its consequences. In this case, other values are thought to derive their importance from the intrinsic good implying an action should never be viewed as an end to itself instead it should be considered one of the means to achieving the greatest good.
Mill and Bentham are believed to be hedonists because they perceived pleasure as a balance of satisfaction whereby suffering is avoided under all means. In case government representatives are to achieve the greatest good for the members of society, they are expected to engage in thorough research by exploring the available options and determining the best with an aim of establishing which one would have the better results.
Many governments across the world tend to apply the views of Bentham who was optimistic of applying a hedonic calculus in resolving the issues affecting the citizens. In this case, all components of satisfaction are often summarized, as well as the elements of pain, with an effort to determine the individuals likely to be affected at present and in the future.
The government would then strike a balance between the evil and the good by ensuring the greatest number of people benefits, irrespective of the social status. In other words, the ethical theory only aims at maximizing the good, as it insists on weighing up the personal action.
Many governments consider utilitarianism the code for public actions and individuals are expected to align their actions to the mainstream principle based on the ethical theory. The policies selected should always be responsive in the sense that they fulfill the interests of the greatest number.
For instance, the government does not consider a policy that would construct a warehouse for the detainees who go through their rehabilitation program successfully but instead it would formulate a policy that retrains, supervises, and incorporates the individuals into the community (Harris 76).
The theory is being applied globally to ensure human conditions are improved as was suggested in the Platos Republic. This means it does not only focus on the individual events and the communal guidelines, but also on the nature of the whole society.
Plato had given a clear procedure of building an ideal society and many governments are applying the utilitarian theory to do so. In the labor market, distribution of goods and services, and management, the theory is of great importance because it aims at maximizing the good and reducing suffering. In case a policy is formulated and its implementation is ineffective, changes could still be introduced.
Society is always viewed as a natural environment with several niches meaning it could accommodate various animals. In the state of nature, animals with several characteristics exist, as there are some feeding on insects, others on seeds, and some on nectar. Some birds are in a position to feed on seeds with hard shells while some cannot meaning each category of animal should be allowed to enjoy its freedom.
The human society is compared to the natural environment with several categories of animals. For instance, people with diverse religious affiliations should be allowed to coexist while those with tendencies to gamble have to be provided with their freedoms as well (Cohen 21). In the United States for instance, Roosevelt came up with a radical program that would transform America as far as economic activities were concerned.
He introduced the principles of capitalism since it was viewed that it would realize the dreams of the greatest number of people. The new economic doctrine was expected to enhance the efforts of the hard working individuals as well as punishing the lazy ones.
Ethical Obligation
In the modern society, people are allowed to post all sorts of information on the internet since they simply represent their views and they ought not to be accurate or true. However, each person has an ethical responsibility of ensuring that whatever he or she posts on the website is sagacious in the sense that it should not interfere with the normal living of others.
This does not mean that the concerned agencies should control what to be posted because this would result in the infringement of the personal liberty as far as free expression is concerned. Individuals should be advised to follow the ethical codes set out in their various professions.
The web user has to read everything that he or she finds online in order to understand the views of others, but he or she has to decide on which material to rely on when making a decision (Westacott 112).
The ethical codes found in various professional manuals should guide people in writing their materials because posting anything, including false information, would be misleading the public and this would cause pain to certain individuals hence the government has the responsibility to prevent this act.
Lawyers have their own ethical standards that each member has to follow when relating with the public, including offering a counsel online.
The government has always ensured that members of various professions, such as the medical fraternity, are guided by a certain code, which instructs them to maintain high standards when relating with patients, as this would realize the best results. Therefore, it is concluded that each person is expected to observe the ethical standards when positing anything material on the website.
Moral Assessment
According to the Utilitarian ethics, the government should aim at implementing policies that will ensure happiness while at the same time reducing suffering (Gupta 67). Any decision undertaken in should aim at maximizing utility whereby suffering has to be reduced at all costs. Governments have been accused of infringing on the rights of people by intercepting their emails.
This does not encourage freedom of speech and expression since people will always be careful with what they post their web pages, such as Facebook and Twitter. According to utilitarian ethics, the government is not doing enough to reduce human suffering.
In this case, the government does not play any role in promoting the interests of the community and its insistence on freedom and human rights is skewed because it selectively (Cohen 22).
In case governments want to boost their images and ensure that they remain relevant in society, they have to consider promoting freedom, as this would ensure happiness as suggested by Mill. Additionally, the living conditions of all members of society should be improved and the cases of discriminations based on gender and race should be eliminated since this will ensure happiness.
Conclusion
Governments have been using Utilitarian ethics in carrying out their activities, but most them have been unproductive in the sense that they lead to human suffering and unhappiness. Utilitarianism suggests that a greatest number of people should feel contented, even though a few might be sacrificed.
The United States dropped the atomic bombs in Japan during the Second World War, which was a great action according to utilitarianism since it ended the war that had affected the lives of many people. The use of technology is always good, but if it only ensures happiness by reducing suffering.
The use of peoples information without informing them is not part of utilitarianism since it only infringes the rights of the majorities and does not guarantee happiness.
The government is justified to undertake any action in case it brings happiness to many people. The idea of hacking into peoples emails and using private information on the internet to track them down is a failure on the side of the government and utilitarian ethics could not be applied in justifying the mistakes.
Petronio, Sandra. Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. Print.
Westacott, Emrys. The Virtues of Our Vices: A Modest Defense of Gossip, Rudeness, and Other Bad Habits. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Print.
Utilitarianism is one of the most debated concepts in normative ethics. The theory revolves around the argument that any action is considered desirable or ethical when it brings about maximum happiness or good. According to the developers of utilitarianism, actions are best justified by looking at the potential of those actions to reduce suffering and maximize happiness.
However, utilitarianism has been subjected to criticisms from several moral philosophers who capitalize on the weakness of the theory as far as the establishment of moral grounds in the society is concerned. Moral philosophers who have subjected utilitarianism to criticism include Bernard Williams and Philip Pettit (Danaher para. 1).
The argument by Williams is that utilitarianism cannot pass the integrity test that should be the foundation of any moral philosophy. This paper presents the criticisms of utilitarianism as opined by Williams and the counter criticism of Williams criticism by Pettit.
Williams objection of utilitarianism
Williams indicates that any moral theory has to stand and pass the integrity theory. The moral obligations of the doors of any actions are to ensure that the action is acceptable and not just because the action maximizes happiness. Williams opines that utilitarianism compromises morality in society. Williams argues against the concept of maximum utility as opined by developers of the utilitarian theory by arguing that it can be used to justify immoral acts in society.
According to Williams, utilitarianism encourages negative responsibility by focusing on certain actions and ignoring other probable actions that can be taken by the doer of an action (Danaher para. 2). Williams opines that responsibility entails what one allows to happen, as well as what one fails to prevent from happening.
Williams observed that utilitarian rejects the universal principle that a person is responsible for what he or she does rather than the course that is pursued by other people. According to the concept of morality, as opined by Williams, failure of an individual to take action is an action itself. As far as the action satisfies that individual, its moral basis is assessed not basing only on what the person does and what he does not do (Ashford 423).
Williams noted that the effects of an action that result from the failure of a person to take action could also lay on the person who fails to take action. An action of a person can prevent another immoral action from taking effect in the society, indicating the broadness of the concept of moral responsibility that is overlooked by the proponents of utilitarianism. In an utmost sense, utilitarianism cannot escape from failing to address the issue of moral responsibility in totality.
Utilitarianism does not account for practical questions in moral philosophy. Williams opines that the concept of morality has a grounded basis on inadequate account of agency. The proponents of utilitarianism argue that a significant moral relationship does not prevail between the doer of an action and the action itself; that is, utilitarian calculus (Ashford 424) what they give attention to our actions and omitted actions about production or hindrance of utility.
This is an undesirable measure of morality in the sense that it does not pay attention to the actions of agents, but it dwells mostly on the impacts of the actions where utility is derived. The separation of people from actions makes it difficult to attain the desirable standards on which the moral grounds on which actions are taken by agents can be established. The linkage of actions to doers is the sure way of looking at both sides of the action and the level of moral rationale in action.
A critique of Williams objection of utilitarian
One of the moral philosophers who have offered a candid counter criticism of utilitarianism is Philip Pettit. Pettit counters the critique of utilitarianism by presenting the concept of utilitarianism that backs the moral theses in utilitarianism. Consequentialism is a concept in normative ethics that opines that the goodness or badness of an action is determined by the impacts of the action and not the motive of the doer.
Pettit argued that ethical theories have to dwell on two main things. These are: specifying the good where the good means what is worthwhile and leaning towards the right action where the right action is determined by the effects of the action. This contradicts with the views of Williams, who seems to excavate morality by looking beyond the question of goodness and rightness of an action.
Pettit gives examples of what can be considered to be good. He backs the thesis in classical utilitarianism, which opines that the pleasure experienced by sentient beings constitutes good. He further argues that this is founded on Aristotelian ethics, as well as religious ethics. In religious ethics, doing religious work is considered to be valuable and a source of goodness (Danaher para. 1-3).
Pettit tries to explain the modalities on which the right action is determined by arguing that the right action is justified by the conduct of the doer and the process of deliberation that is undergone in deriving goodness from an action. Based on this observation, it can be argued that consequentialism tries to delineate itself from utilitarianism by focusing on the action and the process. In trying to do so, Pettit unconsciously supports the observation by Williams, who noted the importance of relating doers to actions.
Williams indicates that the moral basis of an action cannot be established without digging deep into the actions and the stimuli in which the moral obligations of the doer are embedded. In as far as Pettit argues that consequentialism is not a theory of good but a theory of right, the relatedness of the actions to the doers comes out in his theory.
This is important in bringing out the distinction between utilitarianism and other theories in normative ethics. Rightness and goodness are interlinked in the sense that exploring ones terms automatically pulls in the other terms. Therefore, Pettits attempt to make a distinction between consequentialism from utilitarianism by basing on rightness and goodness exemplifies the objection of utilitarianism by Williams (Singleton 1-2).
Several observations have been made about the consequentialist concept by Pettit and its implications on the thesis that was advanced by Williams as an objection to the concept of utilitarianism. Pettit argues that consequentialism can be enriched through combining it with other ethical concepts that aid in the provision of answers that are not explored in consequentialism. This is to say that consequentialism is in itself not a complete concept of normative ethics, just as utilitarianism is.
One of the suggestions that are given by Pettit is the combination of consequentialism with virtue ethics. This means that a desirable agent should be in a position to produce the best outcomes. The question that ought to be asked is how best outcomes can be attained when consequentialism in itself focuses on the outcomes of actions.
An agent can hardly possess a virtuous character as opined by Pettit. The rationale behind this observation is that the character of an agent can only be established when a comparison is done between the agent and another agent who is acting in like situations. Furthermore, it should be noted that there lies a lot of differences, even in situations that seem to be similar (Danaher para. 1-3).
The first difference is the agent, followed by a ray of other stimuli within the environment in which an action takes place. However, the outcomes of action can be used to make a justification of the options that are embraced by an actor or actors who respond to a similar situation in a manner that seems to be the same.
Here, it can be argued that Pettit tries to back the issue of moral responsibility; how the moral stance of action can be established by looking at the action itself and the actor. Williams noted that the actor needs to be related to the act to establish the moral grounds on which an action takes place. Most proponents of consequentialism overlook the issue of the agent by focusing more on the outcomes of an action rather than the motivation of the agent (Singleton 2).
Conclusion
Pettits counter-criticism of the objection of utilitarianism is based on the definition of consequentialism that was developed by classical consequentialists. Therefore, he fails to separate consequentialism from utilitarianism. This justifies most of the criticisms that were advanced by Williams.
Works Cited
Ashford, Elizabeth. Utilitarianism, Integrity, and Partiality. The Journal of Philosophy 97.8(2000): 421-439. Print.
The main principle of utility consists in achieving pleasure from life and avoiding pain and suffering. Pain and pleasure are the only instruments that allow a people to define what they should do, as well as govern their actions.
These two principles serve as the measurement of right and wrong, as well as the identifiers of cause-and-effect chain (Bentham 457). At this point, the utilitarian theory is also associated with the tools that can provide individuals and community with happiness through recognition of felicity as the foundation of all human actions.
The main purpose of utilitarian theory also lies in either increasing or reducing the happiness of an individual at issue. In the majority of cases, the theory acknowledges the communitys interest as the major purpose. Pleasure can be presented to greater or lesser degree in terms of its intensity, duration, remoteness, and happiness.
According to Mill, actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (461). The theorist identifies happiness with pleasure and freedom from pain. Pleasures can originate from broader contexts in terms of both quality and quantity. Additionally, it is suggested that utilitarianism correlates with the natural sense deriving from peoples social nature.
Consequently, in case society embraces the principles of utility from an ethical perspective, people can internalize these rules as a foundation for morale. The only thing that people desire is happiness and, therefore, it should build the basis of morale and ethics. All objects and processes in which people are involved serve as means for achieving happiness and pleasure. Finally, utility also focuses on sense of justice that endows people with the right to happiness.
To attain happiness and pleasure, a human should cultivate only noble character traits that will contribute to his/her intellectual and cultural growth.
The theorists insist that utilitarianism imposes sanctions similar to other moral systems. The sanctions can imply both internal and external dimensions. External sanctions are availably to the human agent from beyond, such as the divine pleasure, or the societys approval or disapproval. Internal sanctions are composed of feelings creating discomfort when humans actions oppose the internal duty.
At this point, both sanctions control the development of right standards for achieving pleasure and happiness. Finally, it is also argued that the morality and ethics of actions should be justified as soon as they are directed at achieving happiness. However, to prove that happiness is morally justified, it is necessary to demonstrate that individuals never strive to achieve anything except for happiness. Additionally, people indeed desire such things as virtue that is closely associated with happiness.
Assessment
The articles expand on the discussion and evaluation of pleasure and happiness. Specifically, the theorists argue that happiness premises on higher faculties and, therefore, should be highly appraised. The meaning of happiness should be expanded to various forms of pleasure. In this respect, a possible objection to the principle of utility arises in terms of the major components of happiness. Utilitarianism also insists that happiness is composed of many experiences and virtues that people appraise.
From an individual perspective, the main controversy concerns the idea that human desire constitutes the only motivation for actions. Nevertheless, the rightfulness of action is often measured by subjective evaluation of an individual and the surrounding people. However, such a perspective contradicts the theory of justice that refers directly to the discussion of rights.
According to the principle of utility, the right implies that a person has a reason for the community to protect him/her against violations. The centre of debates relies on the criticism of considering the concept of right and justice in the context of utilitarianism. Nevertheless, the rights should be an integral component of utility because violating the rights of other individuals in the community will not contribute to its happiness.
From a social perspective, justice constitutes the basis of utilize because the sense of justice is rooted in humans actions. A person desire to punish another person for the harmful action he/she committed. Such a decisions stems from the feeling of self-defense, which is also considered as a moral one because lack of protection does not imply happiness and freedom from pain.
Despite the fact that human rights are conceptualized in the principle of utility, there is a big controversy on this issue. Specifically, the rights are not grounded in human nature; rather, they are premised on utility because they are important for sustaining human culture and well-being. At this point, rights are crucial for achieving the greatest happiness, and people must introduce laws and restrictions that can make people observe these rights.
In this respect, the proposed readings provide a profound account and analysis of the main aspects of utilitarianism, as well as how it describes human actions. Additionally, pursuing happiness as the major purpose of human existence is also justified in terms of ethics and morale because they are needed to respect other peoples rights to happiness and pleasure.
Works Cited
Bentham, Jeremy. Principle of Utility . Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Eds. John Perry and Michael Bratman. UK: Oxford University Press. 1998. 457-460. Print.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism . Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Eds. John Perry and Michael Bratman. UK: Oxford University Press. 1998. 460-467. Print.
The society should be the judge of happiness or harms, and establish ways of ensuring people enjoy their lives. Utilitarianism is a belief advanced by many scholars, including John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. It emphasizes on the need for more people to be happy even if a minority will suffer in the process of pursuing this happiness (Kaswan 11).
It is a one sided approach to issues of morality, governance, economy and politics; therefore, it focuses on how individuals can maximize happiness and reduce suffering. Therefore, the society is the judge to define happiness or harms by regulating human behavior to conform to its requirements.
Individuals can also be judges of happiness and harms if they agree to stop doing things that cause suffering. Thomas Hobbes discussed the Social Contract Theory by referring to ancient societies and individuals as primitive, arrogant, disorderly and poor. Therefore, individuals had to make consensus to cede part of their rights so that they could protect their lives.
This gives individuals the power to decide what is good or bad for them; therefore, it makes them judges to define happiness or harms. This theory is based on agreements that Hobbes refers to them as contracts that give institutions and individuals legitimacy to rule others (Rachels and Rachels 31).
In addition, these contracts enable people to draw boundaries between their happiness and the rights of others. Individuals can establish institutions like courts and security departments to ensure the rights of different groups are protected.
The second difference between Utilitarianism and Social Contract Theory is that the former does not designate boundaries between harms and benefits and supports individuals to use unorthodox ways to pursuit happiness. This notion promotes the suffering of individuals that have limited resources to defend their rights from abuse.
Financial resources, civic awareness and the will to fight for each others rights drives people to seek the company of those they share similar predicaments.
Unfortunately, there is limited information about the limits of the rights of individuals and this makes most people abuse the freedoms of others. Individuals have rights and freedoms that should be protected from abuse; therefore, they have the right to define happiness or harms in the society (Hampton 19).
Utilitarianism gives people the right to pursuit happiness regardless of the consequences of their actions. Therefore, it does not impose restrictions and limits on human behavior and this makes people violate the rights of others when pursuing happiness.
On the other hand, the Social Contract Theory states that people should strive to protect their rights at all costs; moreover, he highlights the importance of sacrifice in ensuring that individuals enjoy their freedoms after agreeing with others on how this should be done (Rousseau 68). Hobbes theory identifies boundaries that limit human behavior and ensure people do not abuse the rights of others when pursuing their happiness.
Utilitarianism is an expanse approach of achieving pleasure while Social Contract Theory places boundaries between happiness and the means of attaining it.
Hobbes claims that societies and governments were formed when individuals identified their rights and marked boundaries that showed the degree to which a person can enjoy his freedom (Kaswan 16). However, utilitarianism allows individuals to do what they want if it gives them happiness. This approach promotes conflicts in the society and exposes marginalized groups to cycles of poverty.
Moreover, it is not right to make people suffer so that some individuals can benefit. In addition, it is not right for a small group to suffer so that many people can become happy. Utilitarianism supports the interests of huge crowds and ignores the importance of equal distribution of resources among individuals. It supports the belief and practice of subjecting minority groups to pain so that most people can benefit.
This belief promotes the notion that most people should be happy even if this means that some individuals must surrender their rights (Hampton 56).
This justifies the act of subjecting people to suffering so that others can be happy. Happiness in the society should be celebrated when everybody has what he needs and not what he wants; therefore, it is not right to have a hundred rich people and a million beggars. The happiness of a small crowd and the suffering of most people makes this theory an ineffective way of achieving social order in the society (Rachels and Rachels 59).
On the other hand, Hobbes believed that social order is achieved when all people surrender their rights to their governments. This means that they become unhappy because they sacrifice their freedoms to ensure everybody is happy. Social order and agreements in the society are supported by the need to ensure there is equality and respect for human life. Nobody will suffer more than the other because people will surrender their rights to the state.
In addition, everybody will be happy and satisfied with states regulations because they will be fair, just and treat all members as equals (Rousseau 77). Social contract ensures people surrender part of their rights to an agreed authority and this means that no groups will be marginalized or exposed to suffering while others benefit in the process of sacrificing their freedoms.
Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing happiness and reducing the suffering of majority groups by subjecting others to pain. Hobbes refutes this argument and presents that individuals have inalienable rights and that nobody can take away their freedom regardless of their social, economic or political status (Kaswan 21). This means that nobody is justified to make others suffer so that he can be happy.
Lastly, religious organizations can also define happiness or harms based on their understanding of humanity and aspects that determine the success of brotherhood in the society. Humanity is an important aspect of human life and nobody should violate the rights of others when pursuing happiness.
The need to make life bearable should not negate the importance of promoting equality, justice and the promotion of human dignity. Utilitarianism ignores the need of human beings to live full lives and focuses on the importance of satisfying the desires of a few people. This makes human beings to be like animals that focus on satisfying their needs and ignore the importance of sharing resources and living with others in harmony (Hampton 78).
On the other hand, Hobbes theory explains that human beings must unite to ensure they promote their rights and aim at achieving their objectives. Hobbes considered all societies equal and that the needs of individuals are similar; therefore, he proposed the need for people to make agreements and ensure they adopt similar principles to guide their behavior.
This theory focuses on improving human life through the promotion of equality, justice and respect for the rights. He claims that Utilitarianism violates the rights of small groups because it grants favors to the majority and allows them to pursue happiness even if this will inflict pain on others (Rousseau 81).
Works Cited
Hampton, Jean. Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print.
Kaswan, Mark. Happiness, Democracy, and the Cooperative Movement: The Radical Utilitarianism of William Thompson, New York: State University of New York Press, 2014. Print.
Rachels, James and Stuart Rachels. Problems from Philosophy, New York: McGraw- Hill, 2011. Print.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Social Contract, Confessions, Emile, and Other Essays, London: Halcyon Press, 2009. Print.
Over the years, people have been guided to act by moral principles, which have gone a long way in reducing the number of conflicts in society. Using moral principles, individuals can choose what is wrong and right. Utilitarianism is concerned with attaining results that are better than actions. The theory of utilitarianism argues that people should utilize opportunities when they are happy to produce good outcomes for their communities.
On the other hand, deontology is based on well-defined structures of rules, moral principles, and thoughts. The theory of deontology holds that actions and outcomes of actions should be ethical. This paper argues that deontology principles could be used to provide a stronger platform on which critical decisions are made in society.
Arguments and conclusions
The assumptions and moral obligations that are contained in the deontology theory were proposed and supported by Kant, but the philosopher has been opposed and supported by many scholars.
Regardless of the extent to which some people are opposed to the applications of moral principles, which should be consistent with the scriptures of God, they are used to produce the best results in communities. It is worth to note that only morally acceptable ways of actions can produce unique results. Thus, it would be meaningless to adopt immoral actions to yield some results.
Duty is an essential concept of deontology, which implies that persons should examine morality by evaluating the types of their activities rather than the goals that they would wish to achieve in the short-term and long-term. Individuals have no powers to control the future, implying that there should be a shift from a focus on the effects to duties. In most cases, we are evaluated on the basis of our actions, which are based on our willingness to act and controls used, rather than our achievements.
Kant held that, although our actions effects do not matter, it is always prudent to realize that ethical evaluations of our actions are essential. For instance, human beings do not have a moral duty to kill, meaning that society has always viewed actions that kill people, such as murder and manslaughter, as immoral actions. This can be better illustrated in a situation in a hospital that needs fast and critical decisions.
There are ten patients in the hospital that require organ transplants for them to survive. Three healthy men visit the healthcare facility to have their regular medical checkups. The three men could donate their organs to save some of the patients in critical conditions, which could be viewed from the perspective of maximizing the good. However, according to Util, it is not acceptable to harm a person so that another life might be saved.
In fact, it is ethically wrong to kill an individual with the goal of saving the life another per ofson. Although deontology does not support the action of killing one person and saving another life, utilitarianism could advocate that the three persons should be killed to save the lives of the ten patients, who are critically ill. Thus, utilitarianism cannot be practiced in a community that upholds human rights and morals.
Universal law is an important concept of deontology. Primarily, we need to act using rules that are accepted by many people in our societies. In this context, if a set of rules that govern our actions could not be universalized, then it could imply that our actions and their outcomes could not be acceptable. In philosophy, the concepts of universality and universalizability are quite different, but they are applied to guide our actions.
The important thing to acknowledge is that we should always do what we would like other persons to do. Thus, a doctor cannot advocate killing healthy persons to save the lives of critically ill patients since the majority people in society would not support the decision. In fact, according to the universal law, persons who have no wrongs in communities should never be murdered.
According to Kant, actions that are founded on moral principles should be supported by an alternative formula, which focuses on balancing our actions with the benefits regarding humanity. In this context, it can be said that moral actions are practiced with the view of achieving objectives and adopting a personal moral standpoint.
For example, if a person decides to kill himself or herself, then he or she could make the decision to violate an unsatisfactory duty and refuse to provide benevolence. In addition, he or she could aim at neglecting talents that could be utilized to treat other persons in a humane manner. However, a person could use the principles in deontology to achieve personal goals, which should be viewed from a generalized perspective.
Finally, it is worth to acknowledge that deontology is founded on the formula of autonomy. Regarding the formula, human beings should have the freedom to make decisions that are supported by a set of universal laws.
Thus, it is evident that moral principles are founded on human dignity, which is practiced together with the standards of universality to yield moral laws that are, in most cases, viewed from a personal perspective. Therefore, it would be prudent to state that human beings should regard themselves as legislators in a system that is typified by a collection of outcomes that are anticipated in society.
That notwithstanding, it can be argued that deontology emphasizes a collection of duty ethics that is used to view human beings as outcomes, rather than the means that are adopted to achieve the goals. Thus, it has failed since it only perceives human beings as duty animations. Also, the theory relies on the outcomes, such as happiness, concerning the majority of people in society, implying that the minority groups are merely taken into an account.
In this context, deontology cannot be viewed as a reliable model. On the other hand, utilitarianism can be seen as a reliable model since it does not focus on the interests of the majority of people in society. As Jeremy Bentham argues, human beings should be guided by reasons, but not based on metaphysics. It is a more practical theory for the reason that people are self-centered, implying that they focus on increasing the degrees of pleasure and reducing the extent to which they perceive pain.
Societies should adopt actions that are morally acceptable because they would yield the highest levels of happiness in diverse contexts. For example, if it would require killing one person to save hundreds of lives in a community, then it would be the best approach, which is supported by utilitarianism. In the illustration, it is notable that the best outcomes would be realized, regardless of the extent to which the action would make the moral.
This paper is based on the two philosophical perspectives of Kantianism and utilitarianism. It seeks to provide a critique of Kantianism from the perspective of utilitarianism. The two ethical models are always antagonistic of each other, meaning that they have opposing views regarding many ethical issues.
What Kantianism may consider as ethical, utilitarianism may consider it as completely unethical? The differences in the two perspectives are based on the sharp differences between Immanuel Kant (founder of Kantianism) and Jeremy Bentham (founder of utilitarianism).
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical model of reasoning which emphasizes on the maximization of good and happiness and minimization of distress and suffering. One of the key proponents of utilitarianism is Jeremy Bentham, who belongs to the 19th-century philosophy. According to him, the principles of human interactions are based on the overall good. In this sense, therefore, good is looked from an objective sense in that what is good is seen as what produces good outcomes for many people (Sher 23).
Utilitarianism can be explained using the principle of the end justifies the means, meaning if the end of a processor action is good, then the means of arriving at that end are also good and justifiable. According to the model, therefore, for an action to be considered as ethically or morally correct, it should have an outcome which benefits the many people. What it means is that people should focus on the end of a process but not the means of arriving at that end.
It is for this reason that utilitarianism is considered a consequentialist theory because it focuses on the consequences of an action. An action may, therefore, be correct and incorrect or moral and immoral at the same time. Utilitarianism relates to the concept of value in that the quality of something which is good is measured by the value attached to it.
If something is of high value, then it is considered as better than something of low value. In regard to how morality relates to utilitarianism, all actions which have good outcomes for many people are moral and ethical. Consequently, it means that there are actions which have a higher degree of morality than others depending on the number of people who benefit from the actions (Sher 35).
Critique of Kantianism from a Utilitarian Perspective
Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher. He is considered by many philosophers as a controversial and complicated philosopher of his time. It is good to mention that both ancient and modern philosophers can be classified into two categories, namely rationalists and empiricists. Rationalists are those philosophers who argued that pure reason was capable of explaining nature.
They were of the view that the human intellect alone was capable of discovering metaphysically objective truth regarding the nature of the universe and life in general. Examples of rationalists include Leibniz, Spinoza, and Descartes. Empiricists, on the other hand, had the view that the best knowledge was that which was obtained through experience. They confined human intellect to the peripheral role of making sense of the experience. Examples of empiricists include David Hume, Berkeley, and John Locke.
Due to his controversial nature, Kant takes a neutral position regarding the nature of life and the universe. He is not an empiricist nor is he a rationalist. Instead, he is a critic of both camps and sees their stand as flawed. He is critical of the rationalists for their content that intellect alone can provide some insights into the nature or essence of things in themselves. He attacks the empiricists on the grounds that experience does not consist only of sensations but includes impressions made by neutral observers on a daily basis.
These two categories of philosophers (empiricists and rationalists) appear to shape the debate on the nature of the universe thereby raising the very pertinent question of which among the body and the mind has a greater influence over the other. The debate is further characterized by other approaches which are based on whether reality exists or it is our minds which construct reality through perceptions. These two approaches include idealism and materialism.
Idealism can be attributed to Immanuel Kant, who argued that what comprises knowledge is nothing else other than ideas. The ideas about the world constitute reality and therefore according to realists like Immanuel Kant, everything we see and experience is based on our mental processes. Kant believes that the mind, which is partly independent and partly part of the body has a great influence on the physiological processes or functions of the body.
Psychologists bring the dimension of consciousness in the relationship between the mind and the body. According to psychologists, consciousness works together with the partly independent mind to influence the physiological processes of the body. The point here, according to Kant is that the mind may affect physiological processes or functioning of the body as a whole through consciousness.
On the issue of the relationship between the body and the mind, utilitarianism is of the view that the body and the mind are two independent organs of the same body capable of functioning without mutual dependence on each other. Utilitarians argue that the mind can manipulate various body organs and processes for the benefit of the whole body. For instance, the mind can force a smile on someone to attract people, especially in business.
For instance, customer care desks are manned by people who always smile even if they are not amused by the clients. The same applies to news anchors who smile throughout their presentations on televisions. However, the body may not be able to influence the mind to think in a particular manner. On the issue of what constitutes idealism, utilitarianism is of the view that idealism comprises many things, not just knowledge as argued by Kantianism. For utilitarians, idealism has to do with systems, people, knowledge, and perception.
Kant has also associated with the formalist theory; an ethical model of reasoning which is based on rules or duties of a person. He argues that it is not possible to quantify good and therefore, the only moral and ethical actions are those who are both good and right. Right in this sense is taken to mean a persons duty. He emphasizes on the motive of an action rather than the consequences of the action. In this regard, therefore, a good action may be done with the wrong motive either by omission or commission.
Similarly, an action may be done with a bad motive and produce good or desirable results. The theory is the opposite of utilitarianism in the sense that it considers both the means and the end of a process, as opposed to utilitarianism, which focuses only on end. The theory, therefore, reinforces the argument that the means must justify the end, meaning that the end should only be considered as good; only of it is arrived at using morally correct actions or deeds.
The theory has been explained as an absolutist perspective in the sense that it considers something either as good or bad and does not allow for conditions under which a good thing may be considered as bad or a bad thing to be regarded as good. For example, if killing one person is morally wrong, the saving of a hundred lives does not have any intrinsic value because it would result in the violation of the moral code of not to kill.
In the example of killing one person to save the lives of a hundred people presented above, therefore, a formalist would argue that since killing is morally wrong, it should not be permitted under any conditions because the life of one person is equally important as the lives of a hundred people, the argument being that life is not a quantifiable element but can only be qualified as good or bad.
However, from a utilitarian perspective, the killing of one person to save the lives of a hundred people would be considered not only as moral but also as ethical. The reason is that the guiding principle of utilitarianism is the quantification of good outcomes of actions. As a result, the life of one person cannot be compared to the lives of one hundred people.
Works Cited
Sher, George. Ethics: Essential Readings in Moral Theory, New York, NY: Routledge, 2012. Print.