Introduction and thesis statement
Human action and society have been molded upon generations of interaction between past inhabitants of this planet. It is upon this richness and growth that practices are recognized as best practices or as out-rightly wrong. The presence of such guiding principles is useful in leading of the present organized lives that we enjoy. In this progression, philosophy has played a key role in formulating principles or guidelines upon which we can understand our actions, their implications, their motivation and the interdependence between various actions. The formulation of philosophies such as utilitarianism has acted as a base upon which philosophers can examine action and their usefulness to humanity and in extension, their moral relevance to human interaction.
In relation to morality, there are various dynamics which determine whether an action is moral or immoral, owing to the diversity of circumstances presented by life. In this determination, therefore, it is of importance that the framework is developed upon which actions are determined as moral or immoral in the avoidance of conflict. Legal consideration also arises from similar reasoning where the judge is tasked with the responsibility of determining if a party acted in the interests of furtherance of morality or otherwise. Kant and Mills developed principles that are important in aiding moral decision making, Mill’s ‘utilitarianism’ and Kant’s ‘The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.' This paper, therefore, is an evaluation of the applicability of each theory in ethical decision making, and the extent to which the two philosophers agree or deviate in moral decision making.
Kant’s Philosophy on moral duty
In Kant’s philosophy on duty and morality, he postulates that in the understanding of ‘commonsense,' the only good thing, intrinsically by itself, and without the need of qualification is ‘goodwill.' Goodwill in the sense that Kant understands it is not in a qualitative manner, as an attribute, but rather as an intrinsic will within an individual that makes decisions on actions to take based on the moral law. In this light, therefore, Kant presents this position as where an individual only makes decisions based on his/ her evaluation of their moral worth. Morality is motivation enough in this case, to instigate action, as long as it qualifies as morally worth. In his evaluation, Kant argues that our own moral goodness is of too much value to forfeit, even under the possibility of obtaining another desirable object, as a result, of this forfeiture. Moral goodness according to Kant supersedes other desirable attributes such as courage. In this comparison for instance, courage may be forfeited where the exercise of that courage leads to cruelty to others. In contrast, moral goodness is incapable of being forfeited as the other desirable object intended for acquisition would not meet equivalent or higher value than that of our moral goodness (Kant, 1981).
In furtherance of this position, Kant reasons that moral goodness is paramount, upon which anything else desirable, is worth possessing. It is, therefore, bound to the other desirable attributes in that it gives them meaning if held under moral goodness principles. In the possession of goodwill, however, it follows that human beings must learn to sacrifice other desires. This law of moral goodness is a constraint on the human desire to do as they wish. In fulfillment of this objective, moral goodness then becomes a duty bound, in that it is a conscious effort. Moral goodness that is not afflicted by the human condition of having desires is impossible; therefore, for moral goodness to be achieved, it must be bound by duty to morality alone (Kant, 1981).
Kant’s views, as directed to rational beings such as human beings, stating that in every situation, one must act in accordance to ways in which the subject would will that their actions be universal maxims for all the other rational beings. In other words, all the other rational beings, put in similar circumstances should act similarly. This principle is questionable in consideration of the human nature. While many human beings seek to be morally dutiful, other influences supersede sense of duty to morality in determining courses of action. Love for family, friendship or emotional concern for others often supersede the sense of duty in motivating actions. In the light of such other factors that might motivate action, one adherence to duty is borne out of respect to the law creating that duty. Laws in turn are created by jurisdictions that we are subject. In this light, a person who is not a subject of a certain jurisdiction is not bound by duty to follow the laws of that jurisdiction. For instance, the laws of the United States cannot apply to a citizen other than the United States citizen. In this relation, Kant’s duty to morality becomes binding by relating it to all rational beings. This universality thus gives moral duty as espoused by Kant precedence over another consideration in taking a course of action. In a conflict of emotional attachment to an individual affected by our actions, the universality of moral duty discredits emotional influence as secondary to moral duty (Kant, 1981).
Mill’s Utilitarianism as a moral theory
John Stuart Mill on his part advances the utilitarianism theory as an explanation for moral behavior, and the determination of what is right and wrong. Utilitarianism, as understood, refers to the advancement of happiness. In this respect, mill agrees with earlier developers of the utilitarian theory. However, Mill advances the theory by modifying previously held maxims on human motivation, the nature of happiness and the interrelatedness of happiness and duty. Earlier developers of the utilitarian philosophy, James Mil, and Bentham understood happiness in its base form as consisting of pleasure. Thus the pleasure or the attainment of pleasure is equated to the achievement of happiness in this interpretation. According to mill, the base pleasures associated with human beings such eating, drinking and sex, are of a lower value in comparison to higher, pleasures. The concept of higher pleasures is an important addition that Mill makes to the philosophy, where he states that an intellectual would not desire to be ignorant, even though his position as an intellectual causes them discomfort. In the same line, a human being would not desire to be an animal (Mills 1863).
Having established the basic asking of utilitarian theory then is the view of morality in the context of Mill’s utilitarianism. Utilitarianism seeks to bring out the best in any situation. In this respect, Mill’s holds that morality has the function of bringing out a particular state of the world. For Mills, the performance of moral actions is not enough, but should be considered in line with their consequences. Therefore, for Mills, the moral action in a situation is one which leads to the best state of affairs after its occurrence. In utilitarian logic for instance, an immoral action such as lying, when done to prevent other people from lying, is moral. In the explanation of this view, Mill holds that there is no abstract right or wrong actions, but there must be attributes that make these actions right or wrong in the first place. In the determination of the morality of an action in utilitarian standards, the motives behind the action are irrelevant, utilitarianism only deals with the consequences of the action, and the action becomes in if it promotes the happiness of others, as well as of the individual. For instance, Mills reckons that the most virtuous individuals are those who sacrifice their happiness for the happiness of others. In this, their action of deprivation of good, in as far as it promotes the happiness of others, but not good in itself. Further, he notes, such individuals enjoy the higher pleasures in that they are able to live their lives in a tranquil manner, and certain of their cause (Mills 1863).
Comparison and analysis of the two theories
Application of Kant and Mill’s theories to the ‘Letter to Menoeceus’
In the ‘Letter to Menoeceus,' in the ethical life, the author commences the letter by decreeing that one should seek wisdom at all ages, whether young or old, without ceasing. In seeking wisdom, the author relates it as the health of the soul, in that the young are conscious and unfazed by the future, while the old are graceful and happy in what they have experienced. This exercise, the author, qualifies as one which brings happiness. The quest for wisdom is in satisfaction of higher pleasures as espoused by Mills; therefore, the two works agree on this aspect. Throughout this essay, the author concentrates on the higher goodness attainable by acting or desisting from acting in certain ways. For instance, and with relation to death, the author notes that the death is of no consequence to us. This logic is advised by the truth that, when we are alive, death cannot be present, and when death does occur, we are no longer present to bemoan its brutality. Therefore, worrying about death is the action that gives death a dislikeable attribute, while indifference to it avoids worry about its occurrence (Epicurus, 2009). Thus in his advice of not to worry about death, the author appeals to the individual to seek those avenues that increase his comfort, while at the same time reducing displeasure. In Kant’s theory, worry about one’s mortality would not be considered as either moral or immoral, as it is difficult to determine the universality views on death for all the logical human beings. Therefore, in consideration of Kant’s philosophy, the utility of life, as long as is not bound by duty to morality, is of no consequence. In contrast, the passage appeals to Mill’s advancement of higher pleasures, which he ranks above base pleasures. An uneducated logical being will never find a way to reason of death, or take counsel, of issues such as death in such a manner if they are not exposed to intellectual discourse. Thus in explaining, or eliminating the worry from a universal phenomenon as such, the author seeks to counsel his readers by appealing to their higher faculties, rather than their notions of morally good or wrong dimensions. By criticizing an action that is not right or wrong in itself, the author gives that action a moral dimension in a utilitarian sense, in that it is against attainment of happiness to worry over death.
When an individual is subjected to pain, the most desirable thing to them at that point is pleasure, and the cessation of that pain. In this regard, pleasure as noted by Epicurus marks the epitome of all decision making. While all pleasures are desirable, when their aftermath is fraught with displeasure, they are shunned in as much as the displeasure exceeds the pleasure initially sought (Epicurus, 2009). This understanding is in line with Mill’s understanding of moral decision making, where, if a decision cannot be made on the attainment of the highest good, then the least displeasure should be sought. Kant’s theory is exposed here in that human beings are liable to make immoral decisions for the avoidance of pain or displeasure. The failure by Kant to accord immoral decision making a measure of retribution fails to explain why an individual may choose to act morally, rather than immorally. The universal law that should guide in the decision of whether an action is moral or immoral is not motivation enough for moral action. While a base moral code as Kant postulates is important, the addition of utility, or the rule of the greatest good to moral decision making is the better way to understand and explain how people act, in relation to the pleasures they deem most desirable to them.
References
Epicurus (2009). The Internet Classics Archive | Letter to Menoeceus by Epicurus. Retrieved May 31, 2014, from http://classics.mit.edu/Epicurus/menoec.html
Kant, I. (1981). Grounding For The Metaphysics Of Morals (3rd ed.). Indianapolis/ Cambridge, U.S.A: Hackett Publishing Company.
Mills, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada: Batoche Books.
