View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home
View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home
View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home
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