TOTALLY just kidding guys! just wanted to get ur attention.
But on a serious note ... A few days ago I was having a discussion with one of our classmates about Utilitarianism Vs Deontology. And as we were discussing Utilitarianism through a possible trolley problem (our favorite model for ethical debates) I could not help but think of one thing. But before I go into that let me back up a little bit.
Mill's Utilitarianism is defined as the Greatest Happiness Principle in which "actions are right in proportion as they they tend to promore happiness and wrong as they tend to produce they reverse of happiness [for the greatest amount of people]." This is to say that when faced with a dilemma look not at yourself, or at your family and loved ones as being more special to you then any other person. Does this remind you of someone yep that's right our very own Epictetus. The one to whom a wife is nothing more than the pot in which he cooks his meat. and her death would mean nothing more to him than the breaking of that pot.
now i realize that Mill is not as intense as Epictetus in relation to emotions (thus the title of my Blog), But when really thinking about it, is it any wonder why people view this theory as being cold?
As for Kant I feel he is a bit of a coward (this may not be the best adjective to use, but it is the best one i could think of at the moment), which is probably why i relate so much to his theory.... he has an excuse for everything. For example the question that was asked in class during the simposium was an amazing one. it forced Kant to choose between his categorical imperatives. At first glance you would think that all 3 categorical imperative supported each other, but this was the perfect example on how they could act against each other. But Kant had an excuse for that too. "we can do it, but that doesn't mean we ought to." HA! what a cop out! I love it!
And then we briefly talked about the Kant view of necessity. Which Dr. J mentioned could even be used to defend Utilitarian actions. "we did it, though we ought not to, because it was necessary." I mean isn't it just perfect. technically you CAN get away with some utilitarian actions and still call yourself a Kantian. Which is why I still, to this day, do not understand how one can say that kant's theory is not practical, but stand by the "practicality" of Utilitarianism. the theory that asks you to look into the future for if you are unable to do so... well then chances are you will most probably act immorally.
Both theories have they their benefits and faults, but to call Deontology impractical and not Utilitarianism ...... com'on.
Nellie, good post! I have the same questions as yours regarding the claim of impracticality behind Kantian theory. I am biased though because I claim to be a Kantian so I would of course think that anything suggesting that Kant's theory is impractical is absurd. However, the inability to actually know the consequences after actions is what confuses me most about the Utilitarianism as well. The part of your post that I am confused about is your statement that " technically you CAN get away with some utilitarian actions and still call yourself a Kantian." If you call yourself a Kantian, I don't think you can be acting with utilitarian actions because as a Kantian you are not calculating the consequences at all. If you act with utilitarian actions then you can not claim to be a Kantian as well. Maybe I just misunderstood with you meant by utilitarian actions though.
ReplyDeleteNelli, haha first I would like to tell you how much I loved the way you started your blog. It definitely got my attention. I agree with you on Kant though. I think Kant is a bit of a coward simply because he does have an excuse and a rationalization for everything and every scenario. However, i do think Manali has a point, you can't call yourself a Kantian and get away with a Utilitarian act, rather you would be acting as a Kantian attempting to act out of duty and faltering in perhaps one of the categorical imperatives. But, you can not act with consequences in mind and call yourself a Kantian, just like you cannot act out of emotions and call yourself a Kantian as well.
ReplyDeleteNellie and LIz, I have to disagree with your claims that Kant is a coward because he has "an excuse and a rationalization for everything and every scenario." That, I think, is the whole point of philosophy/ethical theory - to provide justification and rationalizations. This isn't "an excuse" but an argument. I also don't think that having to chose between maxims but acknowledging that to do so is wrong is a "cop out" - rather, it's honestly representing your ethical theory. He wasn't actually forced to chose between categorical imperatives (because there's only one, just 3 formations of the same imperative), but rather maxims. I think that the whole notion of suspended morality in actions of necessity is simply being realistic: in times of absolutely necessity, when your life is really and truly on the line, morality cannot be assigned to your actions because you are acting outside of rationality and the "merely possible kingdom of ends." If you are starving, or about to die, or being attacked, the necessity to live will not make your actions moral, but rather amoral. That's not to say you shouldn't be held accountable on some level, but that morality just doesn't have a place to make judgments on those actions, since you're acting outside of the moral realm of the Categorical Imperative (Kant goes into much more detail about this his other writings we didn't cover for this class).
ReplyDeleteAnd, to echo the previous comments, you can't be both Kantian and "get away with Utilitarian acts." That just means you're a bad Kantian, and due to the imperfection of humanity, are incorrectly applying his principles (to take a leaf from Milll's defense).
Nellie,
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you in saying that Mill is a sadist, but that would only be because I consider myself a utilitarian. However, I don't think that Kant makes "excuses" for everything, which agrees with Jane's point that it is indeed the "whole point of philosophy." Kant is simply following what the categorical imperative permits him to do. But anyway, enough of Kant. Go Mill!
I have to say, I'm bothered by all this talk of the impracticality of "seeing the future" that is supposedly demanded by Utilitarianism. I have two points to make:
ReplyDelete1. It simply is not absurd to expect that you can anticipate most, if not all, of the consequences of your actions. If i shoot someone, I can quite reasonably assume that I might kill them, and at the very least I will maim or seriously injure them. Thus, I can conclude that I will cause serious pain to them, their friends, and their family. I can also assume that I may be killed or injured in retaliation or that the police will be after me. Thus, I can also assume that my action will likely cause myself, my friends, and my family a good deal of suffering. Is assuming any of that absurd?! You don't need to have supernatural powers in order to anticipate the consequences of your actions.
2. KANT ALSO REQUIRES US TO CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS! As I've said in a number of other posts and comments, Kant requires us to consider the results that our actions would have on reason, if the maxim behind them were made a universal law. Kant explicitly states that we cannot will a universal law to lie "for such a law would *RESULT* in there being no promises at all"(p. 12 of my translation). How is that not a consideration of consequences?
Furthermore, the kind of prediction of the future that Kant requires of us, which involves the cumbersome thought experiment of imagining the maxim behind each of our actions to be a universal law, seems far more unwieldy and, indeed, impossible than that required by Utilitarianism.
What do you guys think?
Manali, Lix, jane and Ivonne,
ReplyDeleteThank you guys so much for you posts!
I really want to hit on the claim that if you are a real Kantian then you cannot be a utilitarian. I do not find this to be completely true. When discussing Kant in class, and even during our symposium, we kept hitting the fact that Kant’s PRIMARY focus is the will, the intention, but that does not mean that he completely disregards the consequences. (Colin talks about this in more elaborate terms in his post.) This is why when we were thrown the case of Anne Frank we were instantly forced to choose between two maxims (thanks for the correction Jane!), for we could anticipate possible consequences to our “telling the truth all the time” maxim. So yes I do think that you could get away with being a Kantian by exercising some Utilitarian actions (not regularly of course). This is even more so if you take into account his theory on necessity. Why or better yet, how do we know it is necessary if we cannot anticipate possible outcomes from our willed actions?