Idea Transcript
UNIT 4
ETHICS IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY
Contents 4.0. Objectives 4.1. Introduction 4.2. Immanuel Kant 4.3. Jeremy Bentham 4.4. Let us Sum up 4.5. Key Words 4.6. Further Readings and References 4.7. Answers to Check Your Progress 4.0. OBJECTIVES The main objective of this unit is to shed some light on the developments of Ethical thoughts in the modern period. Although we see many philosophers of this period formulating ethical theories of their own, all these theories fall in the groups of either consequentialist or nonconsequentialist views. In the ethical stand of Bentham and Kant we can decipher a strong representation of Consequentialism and non-Consequentialism respectively. In this Unit we shall therefore make an attempt to capture the spirit of Bentham and Kant with which they approached the issue of ‘rightness’ and wrongness of human actions. Thus by the end of this Unit you should be able: • • • •
to understand the difference between Consequentialism and non Consequentialism. to present the Nonconsequentialism of Kant. to present the Consequentialism of Bentham. to arrive at the conclusion that we can be autonomous moral agents
4. 1. INTRODUCTION In the modern times, ethical theories were generally divided between consequentalist and nonconsequentalist or deontological ethics. Consequentialism says that we ought to do whatever maximizes good consequences. It doesn’t matter what kind of thing we do. What matters is that we maximize good results. A popular theory of consequenialism is the hedonistic utilitarianism, according to which we should always do whatever maximizes the balance of pleasure over pain for everyone affected by our action. Nonconsequentialism says that some kinds of actions are wrong in themselves and not just wrong because they have bad consequences. In other words, human actions can be absolutely right or wrong regardless of the result, which follow from them. The former was spearheaded by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and the latter to a great extent owes to Immanuel Kant. We shall here deal with Bentham and Kant and their ethical thoughts to unearth the undercurrents of Modern Ethics. 4. 2. IMMANUEL KANT
1
Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804), a German modern philosopher stands as a stalwart in the history of Western Philosophy. He is considered as the most important ethicist of modern times. Kant’s ethical theory is mainly developed in three of his works. They are Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), the Critique of Practical Reason (1788) and the Metaphysics of Morals (1797). Kant claims to propose a universal ethics, a set of ethical rules that is acceptable to everyone, everywhere and every time. He claims the characteristics of universality and objectivity for his system of morality. Kant firmly believes that “what I ought to do” is perfectly well known to every human person by virtue of reason. How does he demonstrate it? Let us see. AUTONOMY OF WILL AS THE FOUNDATION OF MORALITY In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant makes a distinction between phenomena (things–as–they– appear) and noumena (things-in-themselves) which are the two modes of representation of the whole existing reality. The former can be called physical and the latter metaphysical realities. In the view of Kant, “metaphysics naturally exist…in all human beings, as soon as their reason has become ripe for speculation, there has always existed and will always continue to exist some kind of metaphysics.” Making this distinction between physics and metaphysics was necessary for Kant for laying a strong and reasonable foundation for his moral philosophy. For, no morality, in the view of Kant, is possible if the human will were not free. Kant affirms, “it is the freedom of will which is a metaphysical reality that is the foundation of morality.” He asks, “how can we say that one is morally wrong or right, if he/she were not free to act otherwise?” Thus, the concept of freedom or autonomy of will is fundamental to Kantian ethics. The will refers to a faculty, potency or force in man involved in decision making. An action can be moral if and only if its agent is free from all internal and external influences while deciding upon the course of it. The ability to be motivated by reason alone is called by Kant as the autonomy of the will. This free will is the seat of the moral principle, the Categorical Imperative, which has the characteristics of universality and objectivity. Hence, it is to the Categorical Imperative we shall now turn. CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE Kant viewed human nature as a battlefield of unceasing struggle between desires (subjective) and reason (objective) wherein our desires have a stronger appeal than reason has; therefore, we find that acting rightly requires an effort that acting on feeling does not. Categorical Imperative is a term invented by Immanuel Kant to refer to a command that orders us to do something unconditionally – that is, regardless of what we want or what our aims and purposes are. According to Kant, we experience the principle of morality as Categorical Imperative. Kant’s categorical imperative is categorical because it admits of no exceptions and is absolutely binding, inescapable. It is imperative because it gives instruction about how one ought to act and, thus, is a command. The nature of categorical imperative is further expounded in comparison with hypothetical imperatives. For instance, “you should not kill yourself” is a categorical imperative and “you should not kill yourself because God will punish you” is a hypothetical imperative; the former is unconditioned, objective, and binding on everybody and the latter is conditioned, providing an extraneous reason only to the person who has the end mentioned in the antecedent. All of the 2
imperatives that Kant calls hypothetical, thus, depend for their force on some external source of authority – an agency by which they have been issued. In contrast to the hypothetical imperatives, categorical imperatives ensue from within by virtue of our reason. Kant captures the cream of his ethics in the form of a supreme norm that “there is … [only] one categorical imperative, namely this: Act on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” This procedure of testing the morality by applying the categorical imperative in concrete consists always in finding out whether one can will his or her maxim (subjective) to become a universal law (objective) or not. That is to say, if what one does could be done by all rational beings, it is morally permissible and if not, it is not. So when I do something, I must make sure that I want everybody else to do the same if they are in the same situation. Only then will I be acting according to the moral law within. And this applies to all people in all societies always. I should do my moral duty because it is my moral duty and for no other reason. If I look for results, such as my own happiness or the betterment of others, then I am acting hypothetically. NONCONSEQUENTIALISM OF KANT’S ETHICS Kant as a deontologist maintains that human actions can be absolutely right or wrong regardless of the results, which follow from them. According to Kant, there is a fundamental connection between rationality and moral motivation. It is only duty from the motive of duty that can fetch moral worth. Only when an action done on the ground that it is right to do, it deserves moral worth. Any right action done out of fear, pleasure, self-interest or some other reasons, is not moral. For instance, a man does not accept bribe due to the fear of being caught by the anticorruption squad. Such a person acts rightly but deserves no moral credit, according to Kant. Moreover, morality of an action does not lie in the personal interests. The will that complies with personal interests is called pathological by Kant in his Lectures on Ethics. Morality, in the view of Kant, concerns about actions that are categorically imperative required by reason alone, independent of motives or ends supplied by feeling or desire. Hence, in the Kantian perspective, we must act out of a sense of duty and actions done merely by inclination or self-interest are not moral. Kant emphasizes that the moral worth should come from the volition that precedes our actions. It is not the means or the ends that are the cannons to decide whether an action is morally right or wrong but the volition or intention. Intention justifies means and ends, according to Kant! Ultimately, our faculty of willing is the law giver of all our moral actions. The more we become free in our acts, the more moral we become; the more we become free, the more we become close to the attainment of Good Will. Hence, the attainment of a Good Will must be the ideal and moral vocation of every rational being. Since it is unconditioned and absolute good in every possible content, it must be the highest good. Kant adduces throughout his ethical writings that only a free will or Good Will is capable of legislating moral laws. GOOD WILL A Good Will is not something, which becomes good in relation to something else but is good in itself. It is like the colours, say, red, blue, yellow, etc., which do not distil their quality of 3
redness, blueness, yellowness, etc., from anything either within or without but by their very nature. The quality of goodness is the ontological necessity of a Good Will. Kant, hence, begins the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals with this key statement: “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a Good Will.” A Good Will becomes good through willing, i.e., self-legislation without any constraint. A Good Will is unconditional, conditioning all other goods; everybody has Good Will, which can be corrupted by inclinations. A free will is equivalent to a Good Will, which is good without qualification. Kant calls upon every rational being to strive relentlessly for the promotion and accomplishment of the Good Will, i.e., the highest good.
Check Your Progress I Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit 1) What is the difference between Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism? ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………. 2) Freedom of will is fundamental to Kantian Ethics. Explain …………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………. 3) What does Kant mean by the Categorical Imperative as the Principle of Morality? …………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………. 4) Explain the Nonconsequentialism of Kant’s Categorical Imperative …………………………................................................................................... ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………... 4.3. JEREMY BENTHAM Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832), an English philosopher and the chief expounder of Utilitarianism showed deep interest in legal and social reforms from very early age of his life. He wanted to make laws for the best interests of the whole community, not just for the convenience of the elite class as it was the case during his time. Bentham’s Utilitarian ethical thought is 4
presented mainly in his best known work, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). Bentham saw the world as torn between two great forces, the quest for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. From this, he intuited that it would be better to maximize the former and minimize the latter, and that all other considerations are irrelevant. Bentham’s desire for social reforms to construct a society that would provide the greatest happiness to the greatest number was the starting point for the later Utilitarian philosophy. PLEASURE: THE END OF HUMAN LIFE Bentham wanted to purify legal and political institutions. Bentham began his attempt to do so with an analysis of language. According to Bentham, the meaning of language or any word depends on our experience. In other words, any word can be meaningful only if it refers to something that can be experienced. What is real is only whatever we can experience, either through external and internal sensations. The former is possible through sight, smell, sound, taste and touch. The latter is possible through the feelings of pain and pleasure. Anything we think or talk without any reference to experience is unreal. Applying the method of analysis of language on the principles of Ethics, he said, the whole of ethics seems to be evolving around two concepts, ‘good’ and ‘obligation’. If we clarify them, we will see that moral language is really about ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’. We all want, whatever is good. But ‘good’ can mean only ‘pleasure and absence of pain’ and this is all that ‘happiness’ can mean as well. The fictional name ‘obligation’ can refer only to some act we are directed to do, under the condition that if we fail to do it we will suffer some pain. So pleasure and pain are the realities underlying both ‘obligation’ and ‘good’, and the pursuit of pleasure must thus be the core of morality. Basing on the above mentioned, Bentham formulates his moral principle which demands maximum pleasure and minimum pain for as many people as possible. In other words, it demands greatest happiness for the greatest number. He could see a motivational force to follow his ethical principle. Because everyone by nature seeks for happiness and the principle only emphasizes on maximizing it. THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY In his major work, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Bentham says that we are governed by the factors of pleasure and pain. All our thoughts, words and deeds are directed by them. What underlies the Principle of Utility is this basic nature of human beings. By the ‘principle of utility’ Bentham meant “the principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question.” The parties, whose interest in question may, of course, differ. If we are thinking of the individual agent as such, it is his/her greatest happiness which is referred to. If we are thinking of the community, it is the greater happiness of the greater possible number of the members of the community which is being referred to. Ethics is nothing else than the art of directing the actions of human beings so as to bring about the greatest possible happiness to all those are concerned with these actions. According to this principle an act is good or evil depending on its usefulness for producing pleasure or pain. In Bentham’s philosophy, we can exchange the words ‘good’ and ‘evil’ for ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’. The goodness or wickedness of an action is to be judged by its consequences.
5
Bentham’s utilitarianism is hedonistic. Hedonistic utilitarianism assumes that the rightness of an action depends entirely on the amount of pleasure it tends to produce and the amount of pain it tends to prevent. Bentham makes it clear that the principle of utility is to govern not only the acts of private individuals but those of governments as well. Thus governments and the individuals are charged with the duty of promoting happiness. No action is in itself good or evil. Things such as fame, fortune, education, and freedom may be good, but only to the extent that they produce pleasure or happiness. They are instrumental goods because they are useful for attaining the goals of happiness and pleasure. Happiness and pleasure are the only intrinsic goods-that is, the only things good in themselves. HEDONISTIC CALCULUS Utility is something measurable, thus quantitative, scientific and objective. In examining the consequences of our actions, we can determine the quantity of pain and pleasure produced by them and thereby determine which of the options open to us would bring about the greatest balance of pleasure over pain. What distinguishes Bentham’s moral outlook is precisely its insistence on testing every act and every institution by the principle of utility, and its assurance that a quantitatively based answer to any moral question can always be attained. He tried to put the happiness theory on a quantitative or mathematical basis. According to Bentham, all people hope to achieve pleasure and avoid pain. Pleasure and pain, however, differ from each other and therefore have independent values. We have to estimate the amount of pleasure and the amount of pain to which the action seems to give rise and to weigh the one against the other, while deciding whether a given action is right or wrong. Bentham provides a hedonistic calculus for this purpose. His hedonistic calculus has seven categories of pleasure. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Intensity. How strong is the pleasure? Duration. How long will the pleasure last? Certainty. How sure are we that the pleasure will occur? Propinquity. How soon will the pleasure occur? Fecundity. How likely is it that this pleasure will produce another pleasure? Purity. How free from pain is the pleasure? Extent. How many people will experience the pleasure?
Bentham called the seven categories the calculus of felicity (pleasure). Through these categories, he believed we could calculate which course of action would produce the greatest amount of happiness, and therefore which one we ought morally to take.
Check Your Progress II Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit 1) How does Bentham demonstrate that pursuit of pleasure is the Principle of Morality? ………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………. 2) Explain the ‘Principle of Utility’ …………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………. 3) What is the function of ‘calculus of felicity’ in the ethical theory of Bentham? ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… 4. 4. LET US SUM UP In the backdrop of a bipolar division of ethics into Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism in the modern era, we have tried to understand the divergent positions of Kant and Bentham. For the consequentialists, on the one hand, “Respecting elders” is good because there are more pleasurable consequences in the act than there are painful consequences. For the deontologists or nonconsequentialists, on the other hand, the act is good because it is good in itself and ought to be done (duty). While Kant favoured Nonconsequentialism, Bentham opted for Consequentialism in their approach to the Principle of Morality. For Kant, Ends alone do not justify means. But for Bentham, ends alone do justify means. Kant argues that morality of an act depends solely on the motive of that act irrespective of the consequences. The question we should now raise is that ‘how can we do justice to ourselves as imperfectly rational beings bound within time and space in treating ourselves as beings only with rationality, capable of acting purely from the motive of duty’? Or’ how far one can act from the motive of duty alone’? For, people think or reflect differently and come to sundry conclusions. We do not reflect in a vacuum, apart from the culture we live in; on the contrary, the culture significantly modifies our moral sensibility. In this fashion, there may, hence, be no objectivity without certain elements of subjectivity. It is quite natural that we do not reach the objective truth without being, in some sense, influenced by the subjective impulses. In line with Kant’s view, we do also assert that what follows our acts should not decide the worth of our acts. However, the question, “How is the individual subject motivated to follow the objectively conceived moral law?” is one that Kant, perhaps, answered fully neither to his own satisfaction nor to ours. As a consequentialist, Bentham, holds that it is the consequences or ends of our actions that determine whether particular means to them are justified or not. This seems to lead to conclusions that are contrary to commonsense morality. For example, wouldn’t it justify punishing an innocent person, a ‘scapegoat’, in order to prevent a great evil or promote a great good? Or could we not justify on utilitarian grounds the killing of some for the sake of the good of a greater number? The principle of utility justifies any action just so long as it has better consequence than other available actions. Therefore, cheating, stealing, lying, and breaking 7
promises may all seem to be justified depending on whether they maximize happiness in some particular case! Moreover, calculation of the greatest amount of happiness is too complex. When we consider all of the variables concerning pleasure or happiness that are to be counted when trying to estimate the “greatest amount of pleasure or happiness,” the task of doing so looks extremely difficult. We must consider how many people will be affected by alternative actions, whether they will be pleased or pained by them, how pleased or pained they will be and for how long, and the likelihood that what we estimate will happen or not. It is seemingly intricate and impossible to strictly pursue this pleasure calculus before we make every moral judgment. Bentham and Kant radically differ in their view. This is evidently clear. From a Kantian point of view, if the action would be good solely as a means to something else, the imperative is hypothetical; if the action is represented as good in itself and therefore as necessary, in virtue of its principle, then the imperative is categorical. In other words, Kant would indict the principle of utility of Bentham for being entirely based on hypothetical imperatives. All of the prescribed acts of utilitarianism are based on the means-to-an-end argument. However, the difference of their principles accompanies an underlying commonality of belief, that it is the task of moral philosophy to show that there is a method that each person can use to arrive at justified moral decisions, and to show how we are motivated to act accordingly. They were arguing, in quiet different ways, that it is possible for humans to be autonomous moral agents.
4.5. KEY WORDS
Deontology: Deontology (from Gk deon = obligation, duty) is an approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on adherence to a rule or rules (rule based ethics, because rules bind you to your duty). Consequentialism: Consequentialism holds that the rightness of an action is determined by its consequences.
4. 6. FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Practical Reason, trans. & ed. Mary Gregor. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Kant, Immanuel. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Lewis White Beck. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1959. Kant, Immanuel. The Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Mary Gregor. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 8
Acton, H.B. Kant’s Moral Philosophy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1970. Ross, David. Kant’s Ethical Theory. London: Oxford University Press, 1969. Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: Oxford University Press, 1823. Dinwiddy, John. Bentham. London: Oxford University Press, 1989. Harrison, Ross. Bentham. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,1983. 4. 7. ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS Answers to Check Your Progress I 1.Consequentialism and non-Consequentialism are two opposite positions in Ethics. Consequentialism says that we ought to do whatever maximizes good consequences. It doesn’t matter what kind of thing we do. What matters is that we maximize good results. A popular theory of Consequentialism is the hedonistic utilitarianism, according to which we should always do whatever maximizes the balance of pleasure over pain for everyone affected by our action. Nonconsequentialism says that some kinds of actions are wrong in themselves and not just wrong because they have bad consequences. In other words, human actions can be absolutely right or wrong regardless of the result, which follow from them 2. Kant was convinced that no system of morality could reasonally be either thought or spoken about without the presupposition of freedom of will. Because no one can be held responsible for what he/she does unless he/she is able to do otherwise. The will refers to a faculty, potency or force in a person involved in decision making. An action can be moral if and only if its agent is free from all internal and external influences while deciding upon the course of it. The ability to be motivated by reason alone is called by Kant as the autonomy of the will. This free will is the seat of the moral principle, the Categorical Imperative, which has the characteristics of universality and objectivity. 3. Kant means by Categorical Imperative, a command that orders us to do something unconditionally – that is, regardless of what we want or what our aims and purposes are. According to Kant, we experience the principle of morality as Categorical Imperative. Kant’s categorical imperative is categorical because it admits of no exceptions and is absolutely binding, inescapable. It is imperative because it gives instruction about how one ought to act and, thus, is a command. Kant captures the cream of his ethics in the form of a supreme norm that there is only one categorical imperative, namely this: Act on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. This procedure of testing the morality by applying the categorical imperative in concrete consists always in finding out whether one can will his or her maxim (subjective) to become a universal law (objective) or not. That is to say, if what one does could be done by all rational beings, it is morally permissible and if not, it is not. 4. Kant as a deontologist maintains that human actions can be absolutely right or wrong regardless of the results, which follow from them. According to Kant, there is a fundamental connection between rationality and moral motivation. It is only duty from the motive of duty that can fetch moral worth. Only when an action done on the ground that it is right to do, it 9
deserves moral worth. Any right action done out of fear, pleasure, self-interest or some other reasons, is not moral. Kant emphasizes that the moral worth should come from the volition that precedes our actions. It is not the means or the ends that are the cannons to decide whether an action is morally right or wrong but the volition or intention. Answers to Check your progress II 1. Bentham demonstrates that pursuit of pleasure is the core of morality by an analysis of language. According to Bentham, the meaning of language or any word depends on our experience. In other words, any word can be meaningful only if it refers to something that can be experienced. What is real is only whatever we can experience, either through external and internal sensations. The former is possible through sight, smell, sound, taste and touch. The latter is possible through the feelings of pain and pleasure. Anything we think or talk without any reference to experience is unreal. Applying the method of analysis of language on the principles of Ethics, he said, the whole of ethics seems to be evolving around two concepts, ‘good’ and ‘obligation’. If we clarify them, we will see that moral language is really about ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’. We all want, whatever is good. But ‘good’ can mean only ‘pleasure and absence of pain’ and this is all that ‘happiness’ can mean as well. The fictional name ‘obligation’ can refer only to some act we are directed to do, under the condition that if we fail to do it we will suffer some pain. So pleasure and pain are the realities underlying both ‘obligation’ and ‘good, and the pursuit of pleasure must thus be the core of morality. 2. The principle of utility, is the basic tenet of the Utilitarian theory of ethics which states that the greatest happiness of all those whose interest is in question ought to be the end of human actions. The parties, whose interest in question may, of course, differ. If we are thinking of the individual agent as such, it is his/her greatest happiness which is referred to. If we are thinking of the community, it is the greater happiness of the greater possible number of the members of the community which is being referred to. Ethics is nothing else than the art of directing the actions of human beings so as to bring about the greatest possible happiness to all those are concerned with these actions. According to this principle an act is good or evil depending on its usefulness for producing pleasure or pain. 3. Hedonistic calculus is the criteria by which we can measure the quantity of pleasure involved in a human action. Bentham says that in examining the consequences of our actions, we can determine the quantity of pain and pleasure produced by them and thereby determine which of the options open to us would bring about the greatest balance of pleasure over pain. He tried to put the happiness theory on a quantitative or mathematical basis. We have to estimate the amount of pleasure and the amount of pain to which the action seems to give rise and to weigh the one against the other, while deciding whether a given action is right or wrong. Bentham provides a hedonistic calculus for this purpose. His method of calculation involves seven categories of pleasure such as intensity, duration, extent, propinquity, fecundity, purity and certainty. Through these categories, he believed we could calculate which course of action would produce the greatest amount of happiness, and therefore which one we ought morally to take.
10