Individual Blog Post #1

Kantian ethics revolves around the "The Formula of the End in Itself," proposed by Immanuel Kant.  The Formula talks about respecting yourself, and your neighbours rationality and autonomy.  For example one should not undermine some ones rationality by deception.  One can also think of this as purposely clouding someone's judgement. In turn if you were to commit suicide or you know someone that does drugs one can say that they are not respecting their autonomy.  Furthermore Kantian ethics state that  about the intention of the action that determines whether the action was ethical, and not the consequence of the action.  Ethics is about being consistent with moral law.  Moral law is determined by using your ability to rationalize and not act solely on your desires.

Utilitarianism is built on hedonism; or the achievement of pleasure and freedom from pain should be the goal in life.  A very important principle of utilitarianism is that morality actually tells us to maximize happiness.  Reason instead, is a tool that we can use to better increase our chances of pleasure. At the same time use it to help reduce the chances of pain.  Thus, the decision that generates the most amount of happiness, is that one that should be considered.  A cornerstone of utility would be that the interest of the community is what is best for them.

In my opinion I would say that the structure of Kantian Ethics is more plausible. The ability to be able to rationalize is what sets us apart, as humans, from everything else in existence.  Having the ability to rationalize, we as humans have an unspoken duty to respect individual rights.  For example as a human you should not take advantage of another rational creature.  You should never lie to a rational creature, because doing so undermines that creatures rationality.  Consider a situation in where a friend calls asking for a ride.  You being a good friend agree and drive out to provide your stranded friend a ride.  When you arrive at the location your friend simply instructs you to drive to another location.  You have no reason to be suspicious and  you accept your friends story and continue.  However, in reality your friend just robbed a bank and shot a security guard.  You unknowingly provided your friend a gateway car.  In other words your friend used you for the sake of self interest and self pleasure.  Suicide or doing things that harm your physical body can be considered abusing your autonomy.  In other words you are giving up your ability to rationalize; choosing to give up essentially what makes you a human and not an animal.  If you commit suicide you are killing your existence.  In which it is to be considered special, since you are the only animal in existence that has the ability to rationalize.  If you do drugs, you are giving into your desires regardless of the consequences.   You simply do everything in the interest of self pleasure and nothing more.  Ethics should be about being consistent with moral law.  Kant thinks that acting moral is using your rationality.  While acting by just our desires, the reason for doing so will just be for our personal benefit.  In turn we would act in nothing but self interest and in turn act like nothing more than a simple animal in the wild, fighting for survival regardless of the costs.

1.  All acts that undermine autonomy are unethical
2.  All killings of rational creatures are acts that undermine autonomy
3. Therefore, all killings of rational creatures are unethical.

Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism

Kantian ethics was proposed by a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant. He believed human beings are defined by rationality and autonomy. He suggested we should never undermine someone’s rationality and autonomy, instead promote your own and other peoples. According to Kant’s view, acting morally meant doing the right things but also doing them for the right reasons. The intention of an action determines if it is ethical, not the consequence. Jeremy Bentham a British philosopher was the founder of Utilitarianism. This theory centers on the idea that actions are moral if they increase happiness and decrease pain. Utilitarian’s believe we should always act in the way that generates the greatest amount of happiness for everyone affected.

I believe in today’s society Utilitarianism is more plausible. In my opinion, the greater good for the masses outweighs always having the correct moral intentions. I chose Utilitarianism because it is a natural human instinct to want to increase pleasure and decrease pain in life. Kantian ethics seems more focused on living the perfect life which is not realistic. People make mistakes and it us unreasonable to always expect them to make the correct decisions in life.

One example I thought about is a celebrity donating money to charity. Say for instance, the person was donating millions of dollars as a way of gaining good publicity and didn’t really care that much about the charity. Kant would say this action is immoral because that person had poor intentions and was using other people as a means to benefit themselves. I tend to disagree. Even though that person had poor intentions, they are still helping and increasing other people’s happiness. I believe that the end result is more important then the intent.

Barbara

1. All acts that increase satisfaction are morally good

2. All acts of kindness are acts that increase satisfaction

3. Therefore, all acts of kindness are morally good.

Kant Vs Utilitarianism

Kantian ethics are what define us as persons. Kant believes that we should never undermine your own or anyone else’s rationality or autonomy. You should promote your own and other people’s rationality and autonomy. Acting morally not only entails doing the right thing but also doing it for the right reason. Kant also believes that the intentions behind an action is what determines whether it is ethical, not the consequence of the action. Utilitarianism is the principle of utility, meaning the “The Greatest Happiness.” Actions are right to the extent that they promote happiness and wrong to the extent that they promote happiness. We should experience the pleasure and the absence of pain. Utilitarianism is also the way we should consider the consequences for everyone who is affected by an action and weigh them equally. You should never feel that your happiness is greater than the happiness of others. Everyone is equal.

I feel that the theory  Kantian ethics are much more plausible because I believe that acting morally not only entails doing the right thing but for the right reasons. To me it just makes more sense to do something good for the right reason. I feel most want to do things for the happiness of others and feeling good themselves as well. This makes you a rational person. You are doing it to be morally rational. It will make you a better person if you do the right thing and I feel that by doing it for the right reasons people will be happier within themselves. This will also help self-perfection. We are able to find happiness within ourselves because when we help one another it grants us to be a better person.

The Barbara Theory

All acts that promote happiness are morally good.
All acts that are self-sacrificing promote happiness.
Therefore all acts of self-sacrificing are morally good.

Kantian ethics & utilitarianism

Kantian ethics & utilitarianism

Immanuel Kant, the man behind Kantian Ethics, says that what defines us as persons is our rationality and autonomy, and we shall therefore always respect them. He states that we shall never use ourselves or someone else simply as a means, and that we never shall undermine our own or anyone else’s rationality and/or autonomy. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, says that actions are right to the extent that they promote happiness and wrong to the extent that they promote unhappiness. Morality tells us to maximize happiness. An action is moral if it increases pleasure and decreases pain. But we shall not privilege our own happiness over others happiness.

I think the more plausible theory is Utilitarianism, because I think that is what most people will follow and do. We shall always increase pleasure and decrease pain, and that is natural for human beings. If you can increase both your own happiness and other people’s happiness, which utilitarianism says is important, I think that is enough. Although you may have to lie you should do it if that is what will generate the most happiness for you and the people around you. And I think most people will do this. Also, we will try to decrease pain. No one wants to experience pain, so we will naturally try to decrease it.

I don’t think that we in every situation should act ethical based on the intention and not on the consequence, which Kant says. An act can be ethical even though the intention is unethical. I’m not writing this because I want to, but because I have to. The intention may be unethical, but the consequence is good for me because I’m submitting the assignment on time, and that’s the most important thing to me.

 Barbara:

All acts that increase pleasure are ethical

All acts of helping homeless people are acts that increase pleasure

Therefore, all acts of helping homeless people are ethical

Kantian Ethics VS. Utilitarianism

Kantian ethics, an ethical theory developed by Emmanuel Kant, are based on the idea that one should act only in ways that promote the rationality and autonomy of others. Utilitarianism, an ethical theory founded by Jeremy Bentham, tells us that we need to promote as much happiness as to as many people as possible. I feel that the more plausible of the two moral theories is definitely Kantian ethics.

 The following may seem irrelevant, but please bear with me for a moment.  I have always believed in Karma in the sense that for every good deed you commit, or every truth you tell, you are rewarded by both the satisfaction of doing the right thing and with the occasional return of a good deed from another person. This concept of Karma relates to Kantian ethics by encouraging us to be honest without undermining the rationality, or possession of reason, of another.  We can preserve one another’s autonomy simply by doing whatever good deed may be presented to us. By helping others whenever we can, we are allowing them to continue as they would have before they were in a state of need, following their own self-determination. 

              Kant claims that acting morally not only entails doing the right thing, but also doing it for the right reasons. Essentially, this means that it would be immoral to “do the right thing” merely in hopes of the good will returning to you. However, if the vast majority applied the characteristics of Kantian ethics to their everyday lives, acting selflessly and assisting others whenever the opportunity arose, one would be able to feel secure with the knowledge that their good will would surely be repaid somewhere down the road

Kantian Ethics

1. All acts of good will are ethical.

2. All selfless acts are acts of good will.

3. Therefore, all selfless acts are ethical.

Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism

Kantian Ethics was formulated by Immanuel Kant. He believed that goodwill was the only source of ethical actions in the world. He did not think it was ethical to perform a task for personal interest. Kantian Ethics has five formulas which should act as the guide to our morals. The Categorical Imperative tells us that moral acts should be done for duty and not for personal gain. The Formula of Universal Law says that the motives for an action must be applicable to all situations. The formula for humanity as an end in itself says that the motives behind actions should benefit humanity. The formula for Autonomy says that people are bound to moral law by their will and not other influences. Finally the Kingdom of Ends simply means to follow our maxims.

            Utilitarianism is formed around the idea that your actions should be motivated by the maximization of happiness and the minimization of pain. This form of Ethics was formulated By Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. It is believed that the moral benefits of an action are determined by the outcome of the action. This does not matter if it was done for personally reasons or simply a nice gesture. It is also undetermined if there is a moral difference between intended consequences and actual consequences of a situation.

            I agree with Mill and Bentham in my view of ethics. I think believe that most people are egoists and are motivated by personal interest, personal interest than leads to the maximization of happiness and minimization of pain. The maximization of happiness can also come in many forms. It doesn’t always have to be direct for example helping someone cross the street. That is a positive action that promotes happiness for both parties involved. It brings joy to the old women because it’s less stressful for her and the minimized stress takes away the pain caused by crossing the street. Then the person helping the woman to cross gains happiness because of the good deed they did, and their pain (going out of their way) is minimized by the joy the women has for the help.

Then you have the situations where the person doesn’t care about the welfare of others but merely for their own. This is still moral because even if they are bringing pain to others they are still maximizing their personal happiness and minimizing their pain. For example if the person ignored the old woman and didn’t help her across the street they maximize happiness because they might still be on time for an important meeting and they won’t have to deal with being yelled at because they weren’t late. Although the old woman may now be unhappy the other person still acted morally.

The final example would be if the person did help the old woman cross the street but only in hopes of getting a reward. Even if the person doesn’t get a reward later on, it is still moral because the person did it to begin with. In this scenario the outcome has not importance. All that matters is that they decided to try and get happy.

 

 

This is present in all forms and is what I feel a definite form of morals.

1.      All acts that minimize self pain are Morally good

2.      All egoistic acts are acts that minimize self pain.

3.      Therefore all egoistic acts are morally good.

Kant vs Utilitarianism

      In comparing Kantian ethics and utilitarian ethics it becomes clear that both theories have plausible arguments.  However, utilitarianism is the only viable argument for guiding moral judgment and behavior.  Kantian ethics stresses the part of the individual and emphasizes that all people are autonomous and capable of making their own decisions.  Kant’s Categorical Imperative further explains his ideas for moral behavior by essentially restating the Golden Rule, which is to treat others as you want to be treated.  While simple and appealing in message, this idea is much more difficult to apply than utilitarianism.  Utilitarianism includes the Greatest Happiness Principal or considering the greatest good for the greatest number when making difficult moral or ethical decisions.  As harsh as utilitarianism may sound when decisions have to be made that would include the sacrifice of some for the betterment of most, it is the theory that best supports morality and living in a more just society.

     If  eleven people are stranded on an island and a rescue helicopter holds space for only nine with only enough fuel for one trip, it seems that saving nine is a more moral choice than sacrificing eleven.  Or if a classroom teacher has a class with thirty students and two of those students continually misbehave and disrupt the class at the expense of the rest of the class’ instructional time, doesn’t it seem that the looking out for the 28 and finding alternative instruction for the other two is the most sound idea.  Another example is the use of vaccinations.  Is it okay for school- aged children not to be vaccinated against contagious diseases because it goes against one parents’ religion or personal beliefs?  Is it really okay to expose all of those children to dangerous diseases because of the autonomy of one? 

            An utilitarian theory exemplified using the Barbara Method is:

1.     Egalitarian acts are morally good.

2.     Self sacrifices are egalitarian acts.

3.     Therefore, all self sacrifices are morally good. 

Kant vs. Utilitarianism

Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism are two of the most prevalent ethical theories today.  While initially sharing a common interest in morality, these theories ultimately conflict when we look deeper into the nature of their concepts.  Immanuel Kant’s theory of Kantian ethics triumphs as the more principled of the two.

Kantian ethics convey the idea that what defines us as a person is our rationality and autonomy.  Further, it suggests that we are never to undermine or disrespect someone else’s rationality or autonomy.  Kantian ethics believe that acting morally is doing the right thing with good intentions.  Likewise, the intention behind an action is what determines whether it is ethical, not the consequence.
John Stuart Mill's established theory of Utilitarianism indicates that actions are right to the extent that they promote happiness.  Happiness is defined by the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain.  Additionally, everyone’s happiness is equally valuable.  Utilitarianism functions off of cost-benefit analysis, calculating the overall amount of happiness generated by a particular course of action. 

My biggest issue with Utilitarianism is that it does not take into consideration the happiness sacrificed for what’s believed to be “the greater good”.  Perhaps my critic could argue that in one instance it is imperative to sacrifice the life of a mass murderer to save the lives of hundreds.  However, it would be rash for us to assume the same precautions for each instance.  Imagine we are in a Third World country where food and shelter is scarce.  These circumstances have made us protective of the resources we have, thus making us find stealing as punishable by death.  A young, impoverished boy who hasn’t eaten in days walks by a kiosk at the local market and grabs an apple, only to be caught moments later by the kiosk owner.  The rules established by this society have stated that the boy is to be punished by death in a public forum. 

Utilitarianism would not find this particular instance immoral because of the beliefs of the society.  Although the boy and his family would experience pain, the rest of society would be happy because
“justice” is being served.  Therefore, the murder is ethical.  This is a repulsive idea because you cannot justify a murder of a child because of the opinions of a particular community.  What causes happiness to one community cannot be defined as moral for the sole fact that it has generated happiness for a larger number than it has created pain.  Without deeper consideration we are not addressing the true “good” that has come from an action.  What is right is not always what generates the most happiness. 

Murder is immoral

Killing for theft is murder

Therefore killing for theft is immoral

Utilitarianism vs. Kantian Ethics.

     Kantian Ethics lie in the theory that one should never undermine someone else's or their own rationality and autonomy. Kant states that the intention of ones action out weighs the outcome of the action, and in the intention is where the morality matters. On the other hand, Utilitarianism states that one should act in a way that generates the maximum pleasure for everyone involved. If the action increases happiness, and decreases pain, then the action is moral.
   
      In my opinion, Utilitarianism is the more plausible theory because it appeals most to human nature. Utilitarianism states that we should strive for our own happiness as well as others. The theory tells us to decrease pain and thats something we as people do naturally. It is also easier for people to follow this theory as opposed to Kant's theory. Kant says that we should strive for perfection, for people to make rational decisions all the time, no matter the consequences. Although this may be ideal, it is unrealistic and almost impossible. We are human, we make mistakes and make poor decisions sometimes. People also think differently so the spectrum of rationality differs greatly. Utilitarianism is centered around everybody's overall happiness, and as humans we are hedonistic so we are already halfway there. We are usually looking out for our own happiness as well as others( family, friends, etc.), so as a theory Utilitarianism is more plausible.

Barbara Logic:
1. All actions that increase pleasure are morally good.
2. Giving to the needy increases pleasure.
3. Therefore, giving to the needy is morally good.

|Kantian Ethical Theory| > |Utilitarianism|

Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) was the founding father of the Kantian Ethical Theory. This theory is centered around three major principles. Never use yourself or someone else simply as a means, promote your own and other peoples rationality and autonomy, and the intention behind an action is what determines whether it is ethical rather than the consequences of the action. The Utilitarian perspective opposes Kantian Ethics. A Utilitarian will argue that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong in proportion as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill 4). Their theory of morality focuses heavily on the consequences of a persons actions and, more specifically, the amount of pleasure and freedom from pain that ones actions will yield.

Kant's beliefs are more plausible than the latter for a number of reasons. The first is that Utilitarianism promotes an extremely hedonistic lifestyle, stating that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as goals and that all other attractive things are only attractive because they either produce pleasure or prevent pain. Such a belief is so simple that it can be inculcated in animals because it requires little thought and yet what defines us as persons is our ability to think and our autonomy. So if our ability to process thoughts, reason, and make logical decisions is what differentiates us from animals and characterizes our human nature, why should we guide our lives based on the same principles that animals use to survive in the wild?

In addition, Kant's theory of morality actually incorporates the Utilitarian principle, but it is not the guiding principle and should not be a guiding principle. Kant's idea of happiness as a goal is actually interpreted by Mark Timmons in his piece on Moral Theory: Kant's System of Duties. In this piece, Mark Timmons speculates as to why Kant doesn't explicitly state why we don't have a duty to promote our own happiness:

“Furthermore, our nature as autonomous agents essentially involves using our end-setting capacities to pursue various projects in life that are aimed at achieving our own happiness” (Timmons 213).

Essentially what is being said is that Kant assumes it is human nature to seek out happiness. But this will not be possible unless we are able to use our rationality and autonomy to set ends that we can pursue and accomplish happiness.

One might try to find a contradiction in Kant's theory by saying, “If we must promote the happiness of others, what should one do if asked to reveal the location of someone who is being sought out to be killed by a murderer?” Kant would respond, saying that we cannot seek everything that others want; their wants are too numerous and diverse, and of course, sometimes incompatible (O'Neill 178). So, just like a Utilitarian must decide between what is most pleasurable and what pains they must avoid, a Kantian must use rationality and judgment to decide what ends he/she wants to help another person achieve. Kant might also go on to say that if two people (such as the example above) are in conflict, and you have to help one or the other, then you would not be immoral to deny help to the person who has bad intentions, and aid the one whose intentions are good (even if that persons intentions are only good for the time being).

There are many ways that Kantian Ethics can be interpreted, but regardless, the Kantian Ethical Theory will always be more plausible than the Utilitarian perspective because it gives a more absolute and clear-cut explanation on what human nature is, what it entails, and how to best live correctly without hindering (and actually promoting) the happiness of those around us.

Acts without good intentions are unethical

Deceiving your friend is an act without good intentions

Therefore deceiving your friend is unethical