Name
Tutor
Course
Date
A Critical Comparison of Kant’s Ethics with Utilitarianism
Ethical theories attempt to conceptualize, understand the background, and endorse a specific approach to what is right and wrong conduct. Different philosophers have developed theories that present cogent reasoning in an effort to explain ethics from their perspective. However, some of them are fundamentally flawed in their expression of thought. Although they bring out an understanding of morality, they bear some weaknesses. On the other hand, some theories present compelling arguments. The perception of which theories are flawed, and which ones are convincing lies, just like beauty does, entirely in the eyes and mind of the beholder. This is because human beings have different viewpoints on morality. Immanuel Kant expressed his perspective of ethics based on reason and will. He also conceptualized a foundational principle of duty based on reason, which he defined as the categorical imperative. There are four basic formulations of the categorical imperative; firstly, that one should only do things that are capable of being made into a universal law. This is the Formula of Universal Law. Secondly, one should consider humans, as rational beings, to be an end and not a means to an end. The third formulation is autonomy, which states that one should act as though they are making universal laws by so acting and, in consequence, act as a law-making member of a kingdom of means, which is the fourth formulation (Kant n.p). Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of actions. It presents the idea that individuals should act in a manner that will result in the greatest pleasure or the highest good. Smart espouses explicitly the concept of act-utilitarianism, which states judges whether an action is right or wrong by analyzing its effect on the happiness of all human beings (Smart and Williams 5). This raises a persuasive argument since it focuses away from the individual and towards the human race. However, it is my opinion that Kant’s theory is more convincing than the utilitarian theory. I will, therefore, argue for Kant’s theory based on three points; the importance of a universal conception of morality, human dignity, and the practicality of reason over pleasure as a basis of morality.
- Towards a Universal Conception of Morality
The understanding of morality should be universal, or to some extent, consistent. Uniformity in ethical standards is essential. This is because a uniform perception of what is right and wrong would lead to greater harmony. Kant presents a concept of universalizability of morality. He posits that reason is common among rational beings. Further, he argues that moral law exists a priori, that is, derived from theory rather than practical experiences. This creates a form of consistency. Kant presents the formula of Universal Law as follows; “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant n.p). He explains that before taking action, a person should ask themselves whether they would want that action to become a universal law. Further, Kant gives several illustrations, one of which is a person who has faced several misfortunes and desires to end their life because it would amount to some form of self-love. The step to take would be to ask himself whether he wills that the taking of one’s life be considered a universal law. The answer would be a definitive “no” since ending life would amount to the destruction of life, whereas the intention was to improve the quality of life, which creates a contradiction. It follows that using reason, a person will consider ending a life to be immoral and therefore refrain from it. If every rational being, applying reason, believes that ending life is wrong, then universality is clearly achieved by reason. On the contrary, utilitarianism focuses on the idea that an action is right if its consequence is good. Conversely, an act is wrong if it has a bad consequence (Smart and Williams 9). This creates a standard of morality that is inconsistent and would continuously change. Firstly, one individual’s idea of happiness may not be the same as another’s. Secondly, what causes happiness in one instance does not produce happiness in another. Taking Kant’s example and viewing it from a utilitarian perspective reveals how inconsistent the application would be. The aim would be to create a good consequence. If the person ends their life, then the consequence would be good since they would have been able to alleviate their pain, and it follows that the action would be considered as wrong. But what if the person has a family? The consequence would create pain for his family, and therefore the action would not be regarded as right. A third possibility arises. What if the person was a nuisance to society as a well-known thief? The consequence would be considered as good, especially in the eyes of an act utilitarian who views it from the side of the greater good of human beings. This clearly illustrates how utilitarianism creates several possibilities and is, therefore, not consistent.
- The Intrinsic Value of Human Dignity
Human dignity is fundamental and must be respected in all instances. It follows that the second argument for Kant’s theory is drawn from his second formulation of the categorical imperative; “act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only” (Kant n.p). He disputes the idea that the end justifies the means. This is the very foundation of utilitarianism. Smart explains that if we are humane and moral, we want as many people as possible to experience as much happiness as is possible, both now and in the future (Smart and Williams 33). He then explains that most people would prefer having 999,999 happy people and only one unhappy person rather than having only ten thousand happy people. This makes sense to some extent, given the greater good of humanity. However, Kant argues that a rational being should never be treated as a means to an end. He explains that an act is right if the will is good, no matter the consequence that comes from it. Further, he brings out the concept of duty, positing that an act done out of duty does not derive its moral worth from the purpose that it achieves. Instead, the act is good “merely on the principle of volition by which the action takes place” (Kant n.p). This means that whether a good consequence is achieved or not, the mere fact that an act was done out of good will makes it a good act. Kant gives an example of a person who does not have money and desires to borrow from another person with a promise to pay. However, the person knows that he will not be able to pay. Taking this formulation into perspective, if, say the person needs the money to feed his family, the consequence of borrowing under a false promise would be that his family would be fed, which is a good consequence. If a utilitarian approach is taken, lying to the lender is good since his family, which consists of a large number of people, would be fed. The end, which is a fed family, would justify the means, which is making a false promise to another human being. Conversely, taking Kant’s approach, using the lender as a means to achieve happiness, goes against human dignity. Kant insists that general predispositions are of market value; whatever corresponds to particular tastes that an individual desires to satisfy is of fancy value, but dignity is of intrinsic value (Kant n.p). Therefore, the act is wrong since the will itself is not good.
- Reason versus Pleasure
Reason is a better foundation for morality rather than pleasure or happiness. Kant suggests that a human being has desires and inclinations whose satisfaction can be expressed as one word; happiness. He states that reason creates duties and imperatives which do not promise to create happiness. This pushes man to go against duty in order to satisfy his wishes and desires (Kant n.p). Immorality arises as a result of individuals striving to create standards that bring pleasure to themselves even if the standards are not uniformly applied to the rest of humanity. Essentially, happiness should not be the standard that we use to determine what is right and what is wrong. As an example, consider a situation where a person is accused of several counts of murder. He is the chief suspect in a series of murders and is considered a serial killer. His community creates an uproar and insists that he be killed due to his actions since they are worried that if he is imprisoned, he may eventually be released back to society and perpetrate more murders. However, there is a possibility that he is innocent. The question that arises is whether he should face execution for the greater good of society. Is it better to kill an innocent man than to risk the lives of several people? The Kantian perspective would be a resounding no. Even if a human being would incline to protect themselves from harm and therefore kill the man, and as a result create a good consequence, the act itself is not out of good will since it goes against the duty to preserve life. On the contrary, the foundation of utilitarianism is the maximization of happiness (Smart and Williams 24). Consider Smart’s assertion that it would be better to have one person suffering out of 999,999 than to have only 10,000 people happy. (Smart and Williams 33). This would mean that one innocent man’s death would be preferred over the death and unhappiness of a large number of people. I strongly disagree with this position. Reason should be used as a standard for morality since happiness cannot truly be determined.
In conclusion, Kant’s theory of morality presents a more wholesome approach to ethics. Utilitarianism presents a narrow and flawed idea of morality. If every individual were to pursue their idea of happiness, chaos would be a resultant effect. The concept of pursuing happiness is incomprehensible since happiness is indeterminate. Further, the idea of human beings as an end in themselves rather than a means makes Kant’s theory more appealing since it brings a humane approach to morality. Lastly, reason-based morality is a logical perspective. If happiness were the basis for every action, then it would be pursued at the expense of the inherent duty to other human beings. For these reasons, I agree with Kant’s idea of a categorical imperative.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals by Immanuel Kant – Delphi Classics (Illustrated). Delphi Classics, 2017.
Smart, J. J., and Bernard Williams. Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge UP, 1973.