1. In your own words, provide a concise formulation of Utilitarianism. In particular, explain the reasons Bentham and Mill give in support of it. In your own words, provide a concise formulation of Kant’s deontological ethics. In particular, explain the role of the Categorical Imperative in Kantian ethics. In light of the criticisms offered of both accounts, which account is more plausible? Explain why. (70 marks.)
Within Utilitarianism it is believed that there is a moral obligation to attain the best world possible. In order to do so, it is necessary to ensure that harm, or what would be considered by people to be bad, is avoided. Utilitarianism is an ethical viewpoint that is based on the assumption that what is right can be obtained by pursuing information. Utility therefore becomes the fundamental basis upon which the conception of right or wrong can be established. This moral philosophy argues that the right extends from specific empirical points of interest that should be pursued in order to establish the best possible good for the most people. In this respect, ethical decisions can be made in a precise manner so long as the necessary inputs are available. Utilitarianism argues that moral or ethical dilemmas ultimately arise from a lack of concrete knowledge associated with empirical data. In obtaining a better understanding of what people want, or what they need, the best possible world can be created, which is able to provide the most opportunity and happiness to the greatest number of people possible.
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were both strong supporters of teleological theory. They therefore believed that specific actions could promote or distinguish certain ideologies or values. This is due to the fact that there are certain ideas that have an inherent value to them. These things should be considered to have value despite the moral or ethical consequences of pursuing them. Those actions or causes that produce these things of value should therefore be promoted and those that prevent them should be prevented. Bentham and Mill had a hedonistic approach to what they considered to be inherently good. This includes things such as pleasure or other experiences that would be considered to be good. This view is therefore based on the ability to empirically decide which actions are morally acceptable and which are not. In this sense, what would be considered to be bad would be those actions or ideas that do not promote good, or in the view of Bentham and Mill, promote things that are non-pleasurable, such as pain. The nature of good for these two individuals is therefore predicated on the capacity of an action, purpose, or idea to attain these pleasurable experiences.
Rather than basing his moral philosophy on the elevation of some presupposed “good”, Kant's deontological ethics presents the argument that in order to be considered of moral value a thing must pass a rigorous test. His categorical imperative argues that in order to consider a single thing to be right or moral, this morality must have the capacity to be universalized into a general right or moral good. The act, action, or idea must be able to be applied in all situtations and still be considered moral in order for it to be considered moral in a single situation. The role of the Categorical Imperative in Kantian ethics is therefore to provide a maxim by which the established role of the rational thinker can come to some idea of what is moral and what is not. The idea of necessary and sufficient is important within this idea. Elevating a specific thing to being morally right must, in this view, not only make it a necessary action, one that must be taken in every case, but also a sufficient action, one that is able to be considered moral in every case. This can help the individual to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong when making moral decisions or judgments.
In light of these criticisms, it seems that the more plausible account is that of the Utilitarians, Bentham and Mill. While it is evident that teleological principles have their limitations, specifically in their capacity to have certainty that what they consider to have actually has value, there are also limitations to deontological theories, and their capacity to account for actions being morally good in and of themselves. The universalization of moral principles regarding moral actions seems to be a major limitation of deontological theory. This is because there are a variety of perspectives in regards to what principles should be considered to be especially important. This seems to presuppose a sense of value being inherent in the establishment of moral ideologies. In essence, deontological arguments demonstrate the capacity to will any standard into a universal principle. This, however, does not mean that doing so should be considered to be moral or right (Ethics, 2016).
2. Ethical Egoism maintains that one ought to act in accordance with one’s own self-interest. In your own words, provide Rand’s argument in support of Ethical Egoism. Explain Medlin’s response to Rand’s argument. Do you agree with Medlin’s response? Explain why or why not. (30 marks.)
Rand's argument in support of Ethical Egoism is based on the notion that a person is capable of determining their own form of moral good. In fact, within this view there is an obligation, or moral responsibility, to do so. This view takes the principles of hedonism espoused by Bentham and Mill to a higher level, arguing that what is morally right is to pursue one's own self-interests. Within this view, people are viewed as being predisposed to prioritizing their own interests over those of others. Even those who commit acts for others are ultimately doing this because they think that it is in their own best interest to do so. Making decisions in this way, for Rand, was considered to be basic human nature and acting in any other way is morally wrong if it is not done in order to pursue to the best interests of the self. The theory is therefore fundamentally based on the idea of selfishness, or an objective rational decision to pursue, which should never have any altruistic tendencies involved in judgment, which for Rand was immoral.
Medlin's response to this argument challenges the basis upon which Ethical Egoism has been established. He argues that there must be some type of moral certainty in regards to the rules that are built to promote moral or ethical action. This principle of universalizing theories that can be objectively applied in any case is an essential aspect of normative ethics. Despite the claims of Ethical Egoists that a person's actions can be in their own best interest and still be in the self-interest of others is non-universal. There are situations in which the self-interest of two people will be in conflict. In such a situation it is difficult to presume that both individuals acting in their own interest would result in the most moral or ethical outcome. In fact, it is evident that to universalize Ethical Egoism would itself not be in the best interest of the egoist, who would necessarily require others to act in their own. Furthermore, Ethical Egoism seems to be in direct conflict with the basic principles of justice which, rather than being concerned with what is in the best interest of specific individuals, is concerned with what is fair.
I agree with Melin's arguments regarding Ethical Egoism. While egoists make interesting points regarding the need to act in one's self-interest it is evident that the conclusions that are reached by this position are in direct opposition to the principles of justice that normative ethics have been built on. This is because there are a variety of principles that could be adopted that would work to ensure moral actions in a more comprehensive way than egoism. The major issue in regards to this position is that it is difficult to turn personal satisfaction into universalized principles that can be promoted for all people. Instead, it would seem that if an individual were acting in their own best interest they would not promote other people acting in their best interest at the same time. For this reason, Ethical Egoism is unable to overcome the need to generalize its principles to all people. Furthermore, if it were expected of government officials and other authorities to act in their own best interest than there would be a profound conflict of interests that would prevent them from doing their jobs in a fair way (Ethics, 2016).
References
Ethics. (2016). Phil 1200. Unit 4. 18.
