As our discussions this week have shown, there are many fundamental differences between Kant’s duty ethics and Mill’s Utilitarianism/consequentialism. However, I think we can all agree that one of the most important difference between the two is their respective view on the consequences of our actions. This may seem rather obvious, since the ethical theory Mill is writing about is in fact called consequentialism, but I think the focus on consequences is one to be highlighted and examined further.
For Kant’s duty ethics, we strive to achieve/produce the Good Will, which is intrinsically good. The Good Will is manifested in acting for the sake of duty alone, and is therefore is good without qualifications. According to Kant, the Good Will is still good even when the consequences its actions are not, meaning that goodness is not derivative of consequences. Therefore, the morality of actions enacted by the Good Will cannot be judged by the consequences of said action. This is a unique aspect of Kant’s argument that sets him apart and against many other philosophers: that there is no place for consequentialism in determining the morality of an action. For Kant, we can never know the full spectrum of potential consequences for an action because we are limited, and therefore can never know for certain what our actions will bring about. This has always been an aspect of Kantianism that has greatly interested me, and I agree with. This idea can be simplified to “it’s the thought that counts.” Kant is arguing that as long as the will and motivation behind an action are good, then the consequences cannot affect the morality of the action. However, when actions are committed for inclinations or self-interest, then they are not considered to be morally good.
Mill, on the other hand, completely bases his Greatest Happiness Principle, and therefore the Utilitarian Calculus, on the consequences of actions. The Greatest Happiness Principle states that things/actions that are good produce the most pleasure for the most amount of people, and bad things/actions produce the most pain. For Mill, we should always judge actions in light of their consequences rather than the goodness of the agent. I know it may seem simple, but I kept thinking about “it’s the thought that counts” whenever I disagreed with Mill (which, as someone with Kantian leanings, was pretty often). Personally, I think that by solely determining the morality of an action by its consequences cheapens the morality of said action. If an act is committed entirely of self-interest or to bring about a specific intended outcome, then is it really “Moral” or just good for that particular person in that particular situation? I know that Mill claims good actions (good in light of their consequences) help to bring about (in reality or theoretically) the best possible state of the world. However, I wonder just how the “best possible state of the world” could be achieved with everyone doing what they determine to be morally right by the consequences of their self-interest driven actions. I know that we take the potential consequences of our actions into account everyday, but I do not think it’s right to ascribe morality based on consequences rather than intention. Based on the discussion we had in class, I’m sure some of you will take issue with what I’ve said here, but I tend to agree with Kant on this one.
Jane, you bring up some really good points. While I was reading your post, I kept thinking about a conversation I overheard in the laundry room this weekend. A couple of people were discussing whether it was good to put other people’s washed clothes in the dryer if they hadn’t already done so and to start the dryer. This seems like a simple problem but one that I think lots of college students encounter.
ReplyDeleteThe main issue at hand is that there are some people who put another’s clothes in the dryer and start it with the intention of being helpful instead of just dumping them on a table while others will simply put them on the table. Even when a person thinks that putting them in the dryer and starting it will be beneficial to the other person, in reality it may not. It may actually be irritating for the owner of the clothes if they have a preference of dryer cycle or some things in their load are not meant to be machine dried.
I think your discussion above is very applicable to this situation. Does a negative outcome negate the good intention? I don’t think it should either. If the owner of the clothes is upset after finding their clothes drying in a dryer, I don’t think that necessarily means that the person who put the clothes there and started it meant to do a disservice. Perhaps this is a silly example for a complex issue but I think it reinforces how the question of what makes an action good is relevant in our everyday lives.
I can't make up my mind on motive vs. consequences. On the whole I find myself aligning more with Mill; in general, actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people are moral actions. For example, consider a wealthy billionaire donating to charity. He might do this partially to impress people or to make himself feel good. Still, since this would contribute to human well-being, I don't see why this shouldn't be called moral. However, I admit that my thoughts are not completely consistent on this matter. If someone accidentally told a lie, I would have a difficult time describing that as an immoral act.
ReplyDeleteI think that it might ultimately be less than important to reach a conclusion on whether morality should be identified with motive or consequences. Mill offers a practical method for improve the world around us, which strikes me as more important than living up to Kant's standard of morality.