I Kant do that! It's immoral

Hello, 

Immanuel Kant is an 18th century German philosopher and is seen as one of the most influential philosopher of modern Europe. One of his main interest was Ethics. Ethics is a branch of Philosophy which is not so much concerned with knowledge etc, but of human behavior. It's the branch which is most likely to spill out into politics and culture. 

Ethics is a place just out side London where people wear white socks

- Kelvin MacKenzie 

Why do we do things? I don't mean eat or sleep etc, but 'good deeds'. Is it to make ourselves feel good? To make others like us? To get our Duke of Edinburgh award? If so; according to Immanuel Kant those acts would be immoral. 

Kant's theory of Ethics are considered to be deontological, which means we do things out of a sense of duty (deon), another is that the 'goodness' of the act is only decided on the motives of the person and never the consequences. Kant thinks this because nothing in the world is intrinsically good or good with out qualification - meaning something has caused the 'good'. For example pleasure is good, but if that that pleasure is gained from watching a clip on 'You've Been Framed' the pleasure you feel from watching someone suffer (no matter how funny it may be) is bad as it seems to make the situation ethically worse - the pleasure is with qualification. 

Now it is very hard to think of something that is just intrinsically good, and this is were Kant and the deontological argument try to give an answer which is:

Nothing in the world - indeed nothing even beyond the world - can possibly be conceived which could be called good with out qualification except a good will

Kant argues that the best way to see how ethical the act you are performing is your motive. If the motive of your action is not out of a 'sense of duty' - it's not moral. I think, according to Kant most people have done more immoral deeds with good intentions than just purely out of  sense of duty. So a completely moral deed would be not because you feel sorry for some one (I'll bake her a cake because she is sad = immoral) or the possibility of a reward. 

So this is how Kantian ethics would work in real life... You are at a zebra crossing, an old lady is struggling with her bags, you feel sorry for her. What would Kant do? Nothing it's not a moral act. Nor would it be if you only did it to make people think highly of you as that would be a reward (a psychological one). But if you felt a strong moral duty to help then that would be a moral act. To me it seems difficult to separate pity and compassion from acts such as helping old ladies - if I felt only a sense of duty help, regardless of age or bags etc - then I would be helping every one as a sense of duty to make the zebra crossing more effective. 

As we know in Kantian ethics motive is the most important thing, so it is possible for an action to have bad consequences whilst still being moral. For example if because of a sense of duty you attempted to save some one drowning but in the process you drowned them it would still be moral as you acted out of 'a sense of duty'.

Kantian ethics have been criticized as they don't take into consideration our circumstances. For example, you felt a sense of duty to 1) telling the truth. 2) protect your friends. So far, so good, but what would happen if an axe murder came up to you and wanted to know where you friends were so they could murder them? According to Kant you have a conflict of morals . Do you tell the truth? Or do you lie in order to save your friends life? (It's pretty obvious what you should do to me). So is lying always wrong? What if you feel a sense of duty to lie? According to Kant telling lies is worst thing to do - even if it could avoid murder.

Some say Kantian ethics don't take the consequences seriously enough - what if a well intentioned person with a good motive caused several deaths? In Kantian ethics they would be blameless. It's a bit like a baby smearing it's lunch on their face, whilst trying to be more grown up, it's good motive, but creates even more work than being fed by some one else, (if I did, it would just be weird). 

This blog is immoral. I'm not writing it out of a sense of duty, I'm writing it to show off.

You say you're happy?...

Hello,

UTILITARIANISM! It sounds like a word which should be written in capital letters,  which, to be honest isn't the most accurate definition. It's the flagship theory of  Jeremy Bentham (he's the one who's stuffed in University College London).

One branch of Utilitarianism is  'Act Utilitarianism'.  Essentially what's best for the individual is best for the society. The actual philosophical term is: the moral worth (goodness) of something is only based on its utility which it creates overall. Utility meaning happiness or pleasure. 

If we were living in a hard core utilitarianist society all aspects of our lives would be examined and the item or activity which gives the greatest utility is allowed, this creates one of the biggest problem: quality or quantity. For example which is better? A football match giving a little joy to thousands of people or an Opera giving huge amounts of joy to only a few people? They level out as the same 'utility points' the question is which 'score' will we be looking at?

The other key branches of Utilitarianism are, total and average. Total Utilitarianism means things are done if everyone likes them and Average Utilitarianism is if the majority likes it - this seems okay but it could lead to the death penalty as long as it was the majority. 

So the major problem so far is how can we define pleasure? The solution is strongly linked to economics, being: Money, Money, Money! (how much pleasure ABBA brings is debatable). We have all heard the phrase; "cheap and cheerful" - but look what happened to Woolworths, the more expensive something is the happier it makes you ipods, TV's, cars etc.

This is why Utilitarianism uses 'freemarkets', these markets are way to find out what's popular and consequently the most pleasurable to consumers as they are free from economic or 

government interference - it's just what people like to spend money on.  As a result shops look at these markets to help them decide what they want to sell.

Another problem with the theory is how it relies on the society being just a collection of individuals (parish magazines and school councils don't really fit in.) I might want water skies, you may be indifferent - I would be happy, but you wouldn't care either way if the government gave some or not - not exactly the boom in happiness the government would want. 

I think that a branch of utilitarianism called preference utilitarianism is effective. It can be demonstrated like this: for sake of  argument you are on a basket-ball team. Your team is suffering as you have a bit of rubbish player. Some how you make the final you are all really pleased. Coach plays it safe and doesn't let the rubbish player on court. This player's utility points are way lower - but the rest of the team's utilty points are through the roof! (you win, of course). So making one person upset is better for the team. Moral worth of something is only based on its utility which it creates overall.  

So in conclusion the utilitarianism theory is linked with economics. Money equals happiness but we all know the saying: "Money can't buy you love"