Lecture 05 – Utilitarianism & Kant
V->P->A
Systems vs. Choices
1. Systems attempt to give some justification for why certain things
are Values
2. Systems give some method for articulating principles from those
values
3. Systems give a decision making process for moral actions
For us, ethical systems provide the background framework for how we
have moral arguments – they provide the language and modes of
thinking that frame our public debate.
1. Utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill)
a. Defining Moral Value
i. A act is morally good if it maximizes “utility”
ii. An act is morally prohibited if it does not maximize
“utility”
b. What is utility?
i. The “net value” (Timmons) of an action, counting both
the positive and negative consequences, especially
accounting for:
1. happiness, pleasure
2. not exactly the opposite, but contrasted with
pain, suffering
ii. How does Aristotle figure into this?
1. Happiness is the only thing sought for it’s sake,
the only “terminal” value
iii. Quantitative vs. Qualitative
1. Bentham vs. Mill
c. Decision making scheme
i. Probable outcomes
ii. Unintended, but foreseeable outcomes
iii. Types of happiness
1. intensity
2. duration
3. reach
iv. Process: Survey the situation, consider possible
courses of action, consider probable outcomes of each,
measure the amount of “utility” that is produced by
each outcome, then choose the act that maximizes
utility.
1. How realistic is this? Is this an actual
“functional” decision making scheme, or is it a
purely hypothetical answer to the question?
d. Arguments for
i. What are Wilken’s arguments for?
ii. Intuitive appeal – consequences seem integral to our
moral considerations, and pleasure vs. pain are a
natural starting point for those considerations
iii. Mill’s argument: Pleasure (happiness) is the only
thing desired for it’s own sake, therefore it is the only
fully-justified goal for moral behavior
e. Arguments against
i. What are some of Wilken’s arguments again?
ii. Can we know outcomes? Counter-possibles?
iii. How long before we evaluate an action
iv. Justifies many counter-intuitive actions as moral
1. Room 323 (Singer is fine with this!)
a. What if the man gives consent?
2. Justified Slavery
3. No concept of “Rights” or justice, basic and
widely held moral virtues
v. Overreaching – is it morally wrong for me to relax on
the back porch after a day at work? What about the
good I could be doing (volunteer work, etc.)? Is every
dollar I spend at Starbucks a morally wrong choice?
What about the increased good that dollar could be
doing? Utilitarianism makes absolutely every act, and
every potential act, a matter of moral obligation.
vi. Is happiness really the kind of thing that can be
calculated between people? What does it mean to
calculate degrees and kinds of happiness?
vii. Division between qualitative and quantitative
happiness - by the time we start measuring quality,
we’ve assented to a division of “happiness” into a
whole set of differing values (aesthetics, reason &
intellect) it seems too simplistic to label them all as
“happiness” just to make them fit the original scheme
of utilitarianism
viii. Utilitarianism gives us no real reason for preferring
the happiness of others over our own. Happiness is
not fungible.
ix. The best a utilitarian can do is give arguments for why
everyone else ought to be a utilitarian, but not reasons
why I ought to be one.
f. In which topics of public discourse do we see utilitarian
arguments being made?
2. Kant
a. Kant starts with understanding the rational “ought.” If you
understand what it meant by 2 + 2 = 4, then you have an
obligation to believe it, Epistemic “Ought”. Kant wants to
extend this ought outward to make it the basis for moral
thinking, so that all moral thinking is really rational thinking
b. Reason and free will are therefore the only things of
ultimate value
c. Hypothetical imperatives are things we ought to do given a
certain set of circumstances and desired outcomes (desire
to become a good pianist).
d. A categorical imperative is one that is binding for all
circumstances, and does not take into account desired
outcomes.
e. If we can make universal the maxim behind an action, then
it is a moral maxim.
f. Kant states that morality is inherently a rational activity,
and that the task of moral inquiry is therefore to produce a
rationally unified moral theory, one that produces no
contradictions. This unified moral theory would then be
categorically imperative.
g. One categorical imperative, three restatements:
i. (1)We should only act in accordance with rules that
we would wish to see universally enacted.
(universality)
ii. (2)Act in such a way that you treat human beings,
either yourself or another, always as an end, and
never as a means. (universalizing the exercise of
reason and free will in accordance with II.a.)
iii. (3)Act in such a way that your maxims (universalized
actions) become rules governing the states of affairs
within which persons are becoming maximized ends
(Kant’s Kingdom of Ends).
h. Duty is the governing moral principle – duty to the
categorical imperative. It is not enough to simple act
morally, we must also do so out of a sense of obligation. The
dutiful act is the only moral act.
i. Duty to preserve the self
ii. Duty to promote the autonomy of others
iii. Duty to maximize morally obligatory ends
i. Moral Value is singular – the rational capacity of persons.
j. Ethical decision making is the application of the categorical
imperative (as an expression of the singular moral value) to
produce a series of moral duties.
k. Ethical behavior is then the acting out of that duty
l. Pro & Con – Wilkens does a pretty good job with this, so
read it.
m. The impact of Kant
i. Where in the public debate do we hear
ii. Actions not as “special cases” but as universible
maxims
iii. Power (privilege) and Consent are prominent themes
in the modern conversation about moral value. Kant’s
framework for the value of persons (end not means)
is part of the thinking that drives those themes
(objectification, rights of workers,
iv. What does Kant have to say about consent? Are there
some things for which our consent is not sufficient?
Case Studies:
 Who has moral agency (ability to make a moral choice) in the
case?
 What other parties have an interest (stake in the results) in the
case?
 What are the guiding principles for my ethical system?
 How do those principles apply in this case?
 What should I (acting as the moral agent) do?
 How will I know if my decision is the right one?
 What might a reasonable person who disagrees with me say about
my decision?
Look for the Union Label