30.06.2013 Views

View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

know the victim is your son. Kant’s formulation of the categorical imperative over-<br />

simplifies the decision making process and denies that, in reality, values have a<br />

fundamental role in the application of the theory.<br />

Kant’s theory assumes that we can remove individual preferences and deduce our moral<br />

duty from pure reason. But this is not possible. If reason actually worked this way, then<br />

there would be no ethical dilemmas; each person, using reason, would be able to<br />

deduce and act on the categorical imperative in any given situation. And presumably,<br />

employing pure reason, all individuals would deduce the same moral obligation. In<br />

reality, however, the morality of action reached is dependent on the individual<br />

evaluation of the evidence within the context in which the decision is made. Through<br />

reason we can establish our moral duty, but not without values to guide and inform our<br />

decisions.<br />

Utilitarianism<br />

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory most closely associated with the English<br />

philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarians argue that the rightness<br />

or wrongness of actions can be judged by the amount of happiness promoted by an<br />

action. This theory is in direct contrast to Kant’s. Where deontology is concerned only<br />

with moral duty and the rightness of an action itself, utilitarianism is concerned only<br />

with the outcomes of actions and how much pleasure or happiness is produced by the<br />

action.<br />

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the<br />

Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion<br />

as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the<br />

reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the<br />

absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.<br />

Mill, 1972, p. 7<br />

The utilitarian formula, however, raises two fundamental considerations. Firstly, should<br />

maximisation of happiness be the ultimate consideration in deciding the right or<br />

wrongness of actions? Secondly, if we are primarily concerned with maximising<br />

pleasure and minimising pain, how are these to be calculated?<br />

55

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!