After reading the first half of Mill’s Utilitarianism I found it to be in a number of respects a more realistic and practical ethical philosophy. To begin with, Mill addresses the varying circumstances of life, or what are often called the vicissitudes of fortune, to an extent that Kant does not. Mill writes that
Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of sustenance; and in the majority of young persons it speedily dies away if the occupations to which their position in life has devoted them, and the society into which it has thrown them, are not favourable to keeping that higher capacity in exercise (9).
Thus, Mill acknowledges that appreciation of the “higher” forms of pleasure, and indeed of the precepts of any ethical theory, can be made quite difficult when one must struggle just to get by. This is not surprising considering that Mill admires Epicurus, who articulated something quite similar in his principle doctrines.
Kant, however, does not seem to fully recognize the difficulties that poverty, disease, and lack of education, for instance, present in the lives of those who are unlucky enough to experience them. It is true that Kant does write that one has a duty to secure one’s own happiness, “because discontent with one’s condition – bundled along by many cares and unmet needs – could easily become a great temptation to transgress against duties.” Nevertheless, Kant’s metaphysics of ethics does not obligate us to do what we can to raise each other up out of unfortunate social circumstances in the way that Utilitarianism does.
Furthermore, I find Kant’s theory to be unconvincing because it does not deal with actual consequences. Now, I know that according to Kant’s ethics we are not supposed to be concerned with consequences, but rather with motives. Still, even Kant is concerned with the results that our actions have on reason and on the theoretical “kingdom of ends.” For, Kant’s ethics prohibits us from taking actions that, if made a universal law, would result in contradiction. But how powerful is this consideration really? We all know that if and when we lie this will not suddenly bring about a universal law that makes it good to lie. In other words, no lie that we can tell will actually result in contradiction. Utilitarianism, however, does not deal with the theoretical consequences of our actions, but rather with the actual, practical results that our actions bring about. It seems to me that this is a far more useful way to approach ethics.
I completely agree. I like that Mill acknowledges the importance of motive while simultaneously differentiating it from moral behavior. He writes that "motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much with the worth of the agent" (page 15 in my edition).
ReplyDeleteColin,
ReplyDeleteYour post shows an interesting compirason between Utilitarianism and Deontology and have a question for you on one of the statements you made.
"Utilitarianism, however, does not deal with the theoretical consequences of our actions, but rather with the actual,practical results that our actions bring about. It seems to me that this is a far more useful way to approach ethics" isn't MIll asking you to simply be a predictor of the future, because as you so well stated intentions do not matter "theoretical results," all that matters are the real consequences "actual results." How are we to ever know what those are? how is this more convincing the Kant's theory, and how is this more "practical?"
Though Professor Johnson stated in class that most people act upon utilitarian theory, thus granting it the position of Most-Popular Ethical Theory, I’d like to argue in favor of Kant’s view. His method of judging moral action from motive and duty, as well as guidelines established in the Categorical Imperative, emphasize a rational, consistent, and respectful form of living. His statement of beliefs and principles also serve to prevent loopholes that are found in Utilitarianism, as well as self-serving exemptions and personal biases that can be discovered in our daily lives.
ReplyDeleteAs a Rational, Consistent, and Impartial Ethical Theory, Kant takes the cake. It is a logically sound theory that identifies the worth of our peers and establishes a moral framework for ourselves that defend that worth. In terms of debating moral incomprehensible acts, Kant “wins” as well. While murder can be explained away in Utilitarian belief systems, Deontology maintains a strict “No Killing” policy. Almost like the fraternal rule of not screwing over your brothers. Though there are instances where an immoral fraternal act can be explained away – a deontologist would hold firm to these convictions.
These conflicts between morality and situation serve to highlight the positive attributes of Deontology: namely, it’s consistent and reliable.