Bentham and Kant Flashcards
describe Bentham’s initial thoughts eg about laws
- he believed that hedonism was an empirical observation of a real world experience
- Bentham criticised the law of the time and argued that in order to be properly grounded the Law must be governed by the primary principle of utility - that the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the measure of right and wrong. laws are only secondary principles - a good law is one that obeys the primary principle
- he contended that things like too much respect for antiquity/fiction/religion act shouldnt influence lawmaking - eg some religions have a historic antipathy for homosexual practices (eg the biblical story of Sodom and Gamorrah) with some scriptures stating it is punishable by death
- ## he argued that these attitudes base don superstition and the laws they influence should bedisregarded
describe Bentham’s utilitarianism
1) ‘nature has placed making under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure’. Bentham argues that human beings are fundamentally guided by hedonism
2) ‘it is for them alone to point out what we should do” - Bentham argues that when ti comes to pointing out right/wrong, pleasure/pain are the only guides we should consider. he argues they influence our actual actions.
- his UT is therefore teleological and relative , he doesn’t believe in moral absolutes as what maximises pleasure changes with situation. however he did argue that there are unchangeable intrinsics: pleasure is the only intrinsic good, pain is the one intrinsic evil.
- therefore in any moral situation, we need to ‘seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people’ - making moral decision using this principle of utility. this offers a democratic and quantifiable approach to morality
give the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism
STRENGTHS: - based on a single straightforward principle, it is how the majority of society works as it is related to democracy, humans are naturally designed to weigh up the consequences of their actions as we all have the use of reason - it is therefore a natural way of making moral decisions
WEAKNESSES: - places too much emphasis on consequences, which are often difficult to predict, this consequentialism is a flawed system.
- it ignores motives, rules and duties. people need the stability of moral rules and this is why they obey them.
- it also has the possibility to deny the rights of minorities in the favour of the majority - creating a slave culture
describe the argument that Bentham’s utilitarianism is compatible with christianity
- Promotion of Well-Being: they both share a common principle of the promotion of happiness. the ideals of helping those in need christianity teaches is in line with utilitarianism’s idea of maximising pleasure for the majority - this idea of doing good and promoting the wellbeing of others is therefore a shared ethical value - parable of sheep and goats
- Ethical altruism(selflessness): encouraged by both systems. Christianity’s concept of loving your neighbour is compatible with utilitarianism’s focus on the greatest good for the greatest number as both advocate selflessness and commitment to the welfare of others. John Stuart mill highlighted this idea
- Jesus’s actions are utilitarian because he judges people on how they respond to the needy, and he acted situationally.
describe the argument that Bentham’s utilitarianism is NOT compatible with christianity
- Sources of Moral guidance:
1) christianity derives its teachings frequently from divine authority such as the bible and moral values are considered to be god-given. In contrast, utilitarianism relies on secular principles, eg principle of utility, to determine what is morally right - chrisitnas may question the compatibility of a non-religious ethical framework with their faith.
2) Bentham’s UT was formulated independently of belief in god - fi god is irrelevant, ti suggests it is inconsistent with religious thinking. Bentham wanted religion to become less relevant in human affairs/law - absolute vs consequential ethics: christianity often includes absolute moral principles which are considered unchanging and are applied universally, eg the 10 commandments. they provide a fixed moral foundation in contrast, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory and evaluates actions based on outcome, prepared to act situationally and discard rules - contrasts with legalistic christianity. Some christians may find this approach problematic, as if it appears to justify morally questionable actions in some situations, contrasting with a belief in absolute moral standards
- Treatment of minority rights: utilitarianism can sometimes justify sacrificing the rights and greater good of minorities for a greater society - this can conflcit with christian principles of justice for all and compassion for particularly the marginalised - they may be concerned about this
- Sanctity of Life: some christians hold a strong belief in the sanctity of life, conflicting with utilitarianism’s willingness to weigh the lives of others against each other in a situation. utilitarians might lead to decisions which appear to devalue human life in pursuit of overall happiness
- concept of Happiness:
1)for utilitarians happiness is pleasure and without pain. christians associate happiness usually with union with god in heaven, spiritual well-being and moral virtue - the utilitarian perspective therefore may not capture the christian understanding of what makes a good and moral life.
2) furthermore, in utilitarianism self-interest is inevitable - but chrisitnaity lacks this focus. Bentham envisioned a perfect secular utilitarian society, criticising how religion didn’t prioritise self-interest but rather community - Unlike utilitarianism, religion has a spiritual dimension: religion emphasises the spiritual aspect of life and a relationship with god - the kind of happiness that he looks for is in heaven, whereas for Bentham happiness is pointless if it is not quantifiable in everyday terms. Act utlitarianism makes situations which are specific for different scenarios daily life, christianity makes desciisonw with regard to the will of god
- in christianity, to be truly moral, a decision must be made in the right mental state: in Bentham’s thinking, the state of mind of the individual making the decision is unknowable so the task is to maximise happiness in any situation. for christians, god knows the individual’s intentions - with Jesus reminding his followers that even looking at a woman lustfully is adultery.
describe Kantian ethics
- Kant believed that we should base religion and ethics on reason rather than faith - as reason is something everyone has, universal whereas faith is more subjective - he believed if ethics were based on reason a more harmonious society would follow
Summarise Kantian ethics
- Kant presented a deontological argument so in his theory the action is hat establishes morality/duty
- Kant said that moral statements are not like normal statements. Moral statements are either a priori analytic (knowable without experience and verifiable through reason) or they are a posteriori synthetic (knowable through experience and verifiable through experience)
- For Kant, moral statements are a priori synthetic - you can know something is moral without experience, and ti can be checked with experience
- morality is known through the use of reason
Describe Kant’s ideas about the concept of duty
- duty is hat you ought to do. we have a moral obligation to perform certain actions, we have freewill to follow our duty and can work it out through reason. doing what is right for no other reason than because it is good/the right thing to do(regardless of consequences). As long as you do your duty, you are morally blameless, and duty is discovered through the categorical imperative
- Therefore the importance of following duty for duty’s sake:
1) no emotion
2) personal gain
3) no authority commands - using emotions eg kindness/generosity isn’t wrong, just NOT moral. the only type of morality is morals that follow duty.
‘Duty involves freely choosing the action’
Describe Kantian ideas about good will and duty
- Kant believed that we have an innate sense of duty which reason recognises. We are obligated to tell the turret and do good unto others. Focusing on Outcomes are untrustworthy and can be emotionally swayed, we can use our free will to focus on intentions and acts. we cannot truly know effects or the future.
- A moral action is one performed with goodwill, wanting to benefit others - with good intention. To act of a ‘good will’ means to act out of a sense of moral obligation or ‘duty’. The moral agent therefore does a particular action not because of what it produces (consequences) in terms of human experience, but because the agent recognises by reasoning that it is the morally right thing to do.
- Kant says that a good will is good without qualification, meaning a good will is always good and doesn’t require anything else to be good.
‘Goodwill shines forth like a precious jewel’ - goodwill is the highest form of good - kant used the example of a shopkeeper: might be pleasant, but due to the fact they want the customers money in order to make profit. The good will is duty and good for its own sake - the shopkeeper being honest because its the right and dutiful thing to do. good will is autonomous and without reservation
Describe what Kantian ethics teaches about moral law
- Kant argued that duty and goodwill together make the moral law. ‘The moral law within’ means that everyone can reason how they ought to behave in a situation
- humans are free to choose to act towards moral law or not
- all moral life strives for the Summum Bonum: the place where our happiness and our virtue (good actions through doing our duty) come together
- Kant argues that errors occur in moral thinking when following heteronomous approaches, eg arguments based on following laws by others such as the state/church.
- the only moral law we should follow is that which is knowable by reason
describe how Kant differentiated between categorical and hypothetical maxims (rules) - categorical imperative
- Hypothetical rules are qualified by an ‘if’ statement (eg you should do your homework if you want to do well in the exam)
- Categorical rules are not qualified by an ‘if’ statement, they apply universally. (eg you shouldn’t steal applies universally)
- The categorical imperative is what Kant intended to be the basis of all other rules ( a categorical imperative is a rule true in all circumstances)
- the categorical imperative is the central concept of Kantian deontological moral philosophy. According to Kant, moral laws are categorical, not hypothetical. To disobey the categorical imperative is not just wrong, but irrational and a misuse of reason
- Kant gives to ways to test whether a maxim/rule passes the categorical imperative: contradiction in conception and contradiction in will. He also gives the humanity formula as another formula for the categorical imperative
- the categorical imperative is therefore an act which is good in itself (intrinsically) regardless of consequences, ti doesn’t depend on what I might wish, doesn’t differ between people. It is the right thing to do with no justification and it is in line with duty so it helps to be moral
give the first formulation of the categorical imperative: universalisability
‘Act only according to that maxim by which you could at the same time will it become a natural law’ - Kant. - He differentiated between a contradiction in conception and a contradiction in will
- contradiction in conception: we should only act on an ethical principle if it is logically possible for everyone to act on it - test of universalisability - eg lying cannot be universalised because if everyone lie d there’d be no honesty/truth. However lying depends on honesty/truth, therefore by willing everyone to lie, we would be willing the undermining of the concept on which lying depends for its existence in the first place. A contradiction arises in the conception of everyone acting on that maxim. It is thus irrational to will lying be a universal law.
- contradiction in will: a maxim like ‘always refuse help from others’ doesn’t lead to a contradiction in will , it is technically possible for everyone to act on it - however he argues maxims like these cannot be universalised because they contradict our rational will to achieve ends, as we may require help from others to do so. We would be contradicting our rational will to do so - irrational
give the second form of the categorical imperative: formula of the ends in itself (means to an end)
- “Always treat persons, whether others or in yourself, always as an end, never merely as a means.” – Kant
- Rational agents have and seek goals which Kant called ‘ends’, this is true for others too. The basis upon which I will the achievement of my ends is the same basis upon which others will their ends. Therefore treating others as a mere ‘means’ denies them the ability to achieve their ends. Yet, their basis for willing their end is the same as mine. This makes it irrational to treat persons as if they only existed for my ends.
- it is acceptable to treat someone as a means so Long as you also treat them as an end - Kant gave the example of the waiter - technically you are treating them as a means however it is acceptable as Long as you treat them as an end by treating them with respect
give the third formulation of the categorical imperative: formula of the kingdom of ends
- this is more a reminder of the need to always act on the moral law
- if everyone followed Kant’s ethics we would have a ‘kingdom of ends’ a world of rational beings where everyone was treated as an end - we should behave as if we did live in that world. we shudlnt put aside the moral law simply because others aren’t following it
describe the three postulates of ethics according to Kant
- he argues reason can figure out this basis for ethics, but ethics doesn’t make sense without three postulates which we have to assume to be true for ethics to be based on reason
1) God
2) Immortality
3) Free will - Kant thought that without free will, we couldn’t be responsible for our actions and thus surely ethics would be pointless - Kant pointed out that good people are not always rewarded in life, and some times bad people do seem to be rewarded. This was unjust. For ethics to work, there needs to be justice. So, Kant thought that there must be a God who lets us in to an afterlife where good people are rewarded with happiness. Kant called this the ‘summum bonum’, meaning the highest good.
Weakness: Kant and consequentialism
- Kant would be committed to the view that lying about hiding jews from a nazi is WRONG
- This therefore opposes consequentialist theories as it opposes our intuition
- kant argues that we are responsible for our own moral actions as rational agents - lying to the nazi is to act as if we were responsible for their own action
- Kant therefore overlooks the fact that we are responsible for what others do - we exist in complex social webs of influence and we exist in deep connection to other people and so we are to some extent responsible for other people’s actions. furthermore, just because we can’;t control consequences completely doesn’t mean they don’;t matter ethically
give the strengths of Kant’s categorical imperative
- simple and effective tool to use our reason to discover moral laws
- it could be understood even by children, showing its universalisability
- kant shows that consequentialist theories such as Bentham’s justify bad acts to bring about good consequences - however, there are some acts which can never be morally justifiable
- It removes emotion from moral decisionmaking, so everyone will br treated equally and there will be no favouritism.
- Kantian ethics are therefore influential today because of the modern emphasis on human rights and equality. Humans have intrinsic value and cannot be used to achieve an end (slavery)
- WD Ross’s prima facie duties attempt to modernise Kantian ethics, showing that humans can act upon intuitive truths, in cases where categorical imperatives conflict, one duty can take priority over the other
give the weaknesses of Kant and his categorical imperative
- it is no more believable than divine command theory, as both are non-natural guesswork. Morality exists in this world and is not a noumenal realm (something existing independently of human sense)
- We can see that there are no universally agreed moral rules, therefore the categorical imperative is wishful thinking
- kant ignores the fact that not all humans have the universal capacity to work out universal maxims
- it is unrealistic, as Hume shows that it is impossible for humans to ignore their emotions and desires - this is what makes us humans.
- Kantian ethics are too rigid and restrictive - surely if the consequence is good, the act becomes good.
- Kant’s theory doesn’t make it clear what a person should do with two conflicting duties
- Kant’s theory is anthropocentric as he believes that humans ALONE have intrinsic value. animals are not considered in this theory, as Kant argues that they are non-rational and aren’t members of the moral community - justifies animal cruelty
- kant believes reason gives humans a drive to follow their duty to achieve Summum Bonus which only god can provide as he is immortal - therefore it is redundant to an atheist
- kant would himself most likely reject Ross’ prima facie duties as he would say they are not ‘good will’ - a duty broke is immoral, regardless of the situation or context.
Evidence for Kantian ethics being compatible with religious decision making
Universal moral law:
- Kant argues for the existence of a universal moral law that applies to all rational beings irrespective of their personal inclinations/desires. chirstinaity also often posits the existence of moral absolutes derived from divine commandments, reflecting a universal and objective moral order.
Duty and good intentions:
- Kant emphasises acting out of a sense of duty and the importance of good intention. Moral actions must be motivated by a sense of duty rather than personal desires. Christianity too shares a concern for the purity of motives and intentions. concepts such as agape love, where one acts for the well-being of others without selfish motives aligns with the Kantian emphasis on good will. Kant’s principle of universalisability is compatible with religious ideas concerning our behaviour to others ‘treat others the way you wish to be treated’
Human dignity:
- Kant acknowledges the intrinsic value and dignity of individuals based on their rational nature. Christianity often affirms the sanctity of human life, viewing individuals as created in the image of god, providing a b basis for a shared emphasis on human dignity.
Autonomy and free will:
Kantian perspective - Kantian ethics values individual autonomy and the exercise of rationality in moral decisionmaking. While acknowledging human fallenness, Christianity emphasis the significance of free will and individual responsibility for moral choices.
Furthermore:
- according to kant, the most compelling historical modal of moral behaviour is Jesus of nazareth as he resisted all temptations - it is not necessary to believe that Jesus was the son of god, but it is important to believe in the possibility that Jesus actually attained moral perfection.
- His postulates of practical reason include two religious ideas - that god and immortality are needed to make sense of morality.
- Kant’s emphasis on the use of reason to define moral truths is similar to aquinas’ use of reason to understand the natural moral law. The ‘end’ of moral decision-making is similar for both Kant and aquinas - perfect union of virtue/happiness in Summer Bonum, versus union with god in the next life. Kant’s concept of good will is compatible with Christina ideas about virtue
give evidence that Kantian ethics is NOT compatible with religious decisionmaking
- Kant’s categorical imperative is arguable consistent with secular rather than religious ideas
His system is based on enlightenment values of reason and autonomy:
- His view of the categorical imperative/universalisability/value of individuals as ends in themselves/ideal society as kingdom of ends - these all suggest the inherent value of individuals and the rule of human reason, WITHOUT reference to religion. HE is regarded as the leading figure of the European englightenment - the triumph of human reason/autonomy over ages of superstition and unquestioning acceptance of authority
moral law must be autonomous rather than religious for the agent to have a good will
- Kant insists that the only thing that is good in itself is the good will, and the good will is self-evidently a matter of volition
- Kant therefore excludes all consideration of divine command in his ethics, because by definition following a divine command involves accepting the moral will of another authority
Kant also makes no appeal to text/scripture as an ethical authority
- All such authority is invested in the moral agent, who has to assent to the categorical imperative through practical reason and not by submitting to the dictates of any supposedly god-given text
Kant’s principle of universalisability can be used in secular ethics, so universalisability needs no religious reference
- Kant’s categorical imperative can function just as well without any religious context:
- if moral law and the good will are autonomous, and if moral autonomy is invested in the moral agent rather than in any text or scripture, then the religious parts of Kant’s theory can be abandoned without weakening his ethical approach. His ideas about god/summum bonus can be seen as incompatible with his ethical approach as they weaken his argument about moral law/moral will
Kant’s categorical imperative is an unconditional command - this isn’t compatible with SOME versions of christian ethics - eg fletcher’s situation ethics
- depending on the situation according to Fletcher, any moral command/rule can be ignored to maximise love. Whitin Catholic ethics, Aquinas held that there are situations where secondary precepts aren’t absolute - it is permissible to steal in order to save a starving man from death.
