LESSON 5 - The highest good must be both good in itself

(intrinsically good) and good without

DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS qualification (the addition of that thing never
Deontology - from Greek “deon” which means makes a situation ethically worse)
obligation, duty - Those things that are usually thought to be
good, such as intelligence, perseverance and
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS is the normative pleasure, fail to be either intrinsically good or
ethical theory that the morality of an action should be good without qualification.
based on whether that action itself is right or wrong - PLEASURE, for example, appears not to be
under a series of rules, rather than based on the good without qualification, because when
consequences of the action. people take pleasure in watching someone
suffer, this seems to make the situation
An action is morally acceptable if motivated by
ethically worse.
moral obligation. A moral obligation may arise from
2. It is not the consequences of actions that make
an external or internal source, such as a set of rules
them right or wrong but the motives of the
inherent to the universe, religious law, or a set of
person who carries out the action. A moral act
personal or cultural values (any of which may be in
is one that is done out of good will.
conflict with personal desires).
- Consequences of an act cannot be used to
The term "DEONTOLOGICAL" was first used by determine that the person has a good will;
C. D. Broad in his 1930 book, Five Types of Ethical good consequences could arise by accident
Theory. Older usage of the term goes back to Jeremy from an action that was motivated by a desire
Bentham, who coined it before 1816 as a synonym of to cause harm to an innocent person, and bad
DICASTIC OR CENSORIAL ETHICS (ethics consequences could arise from an action that
based on judgement). was well-motivated.
- A person has a good will when he 'acts out of
Much of definitions on deontological ethics is found in respect for the moral law'. People 'act out of
an ancient Tamil literature Thirukural, which is respect for the moral law' when they act in
believed to be written in between 300 BCE and 5th some way because they have a duty to do so.
century CE.
KANTIAN ETHICS: KEY CONCEPTS
IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804)
A PRIORI TRUTHS: AUTONOMOUS REASON,
 Born April 22, 1724 to a religious and lower GOODWILL AND DUTY
middle-class family
 Studied at Pietistic Friedrichskolleg of - The foundation of ethical living is Reason
Konigsberg, East Prussia (now Kaliningrad, - The source is, Goodwill
Russia) - The motivation is Duty/Obligation
 Continued studies at the University of - Autonomous reasoning
Konigsberg - Emphasis on internal goodwill vs external good
 From 1746-1755 worked as a tutor for rich
families
 Appointed as instructor and eventually “Man as an End in Himself”
awarded full professorship
- Duty or obligation must not be passed on to others
 Best-known writings:
 General Natural History and Theory of UNIVERSALIZABILITY
Heavens (1755)
- One’s definition of duty or obligation ought to be
 Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
acceptable and applicable to others in similar
(1785) situation
 Critique of Practical Reason (1788)
 Metaphysics of Morals (1785) DUTY
 Religion Within the Limits of Reason (1792)
Duties to ourselves versus duties to others.
DEONTOLOGY IN IMMANUEL KANT'S - For example, we have an obligation not to kill
THEORY OF ETHICS ourselves as well as an obligation not to kill
1. To act in the morally right way, people must others.
act from duty. “PERFECT" AND "IMPERFECT" DUTIES:
PERFECT DUTY — Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics
of Morals
- Duties that are blameworthy if not met, as they
are a basic required duty for a human being. “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could
- According to Kant’s his reasoning, we first also will that my maxim should become a universal
have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that law”
result in logical contradictions when we
“MAXIM” – a rule or principle of action
attempt to universalize them.
“UNIVERSAL LAW” = something that must always
Example: "It is permissible to steal" would result in a
be done in similar situations
contradiction upon universalization.
- Example: Is it morally acceptable to kill someone
- The notion of stealing presupposes the
for insulting you?
existence of personal property, but were
stealing universalized, then there could be no What would happen if I made the maxim of this
personal property, and so the proposition has action a universal law (i.e., you must kill anyone who
logically negated itself. insults you)? Is this universalization possible? Does it
make sense?
IMPERFECT DUTY
If everyone did this, we’d swiftly and surely run out
- Duties that allow for individual desires in how
of people to kill, and it would no longer be possible to
they are carried out in practice.
follow the law. Because of this logical contradiction,
- Because these depend somewhat on the
Kant felt that we have a perfect duty to not kill people.
subjective preferences of humans, this duty is
not as strong as a perfect duty, but it is still
morally binding.
- As such, unlike perfect duties, you do not CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
attract blame should you not complete an
THE HUMANITY FORMULATION
imperfect duty but you shall receive praise for
it should you complete it. “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in
- A particular example provided by Kant is the your own person or in the person of any other, never
imperfect duty to cultivate one's own talents. merely as a means to an end, but always at the same
time as an end.”
HYPOTHETICAL VS CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVES — Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of
Morals
HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES
Also referred to as the “end in itself” formulation –
- Most of the time, whether or not we ought to Which occurs when people try to use ‘Maxims’ rules
do something is not a moral choice – instead, to suit themselves, this formulation states that we must
it’s just contingent on our desires not treat others as if they do not have their own life, we
- IF you want x, THEN you ought to do must respect that they do.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES – Commands you - Example: It may be my duty to give maybe a
must follow regardless of your desires. Moral few pennies I have to spare to charity but a
obligations are derived from pure reason. homeless man cannot DEMAND that i do so
- It doesn’t matter if you want to be moral or not because I am not a means to his end and e
– the moral law is binding on all of us must respect that.
- You don’t need religion to know what that law “MERE MEANS” – to use it only for your own
is, because what’s right or wrong is knowable benefit, with no thought to the interest or benefit of the
by using your intellect. thing you’re using.”
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: - We’re not mere objects that exist to be used by
others. We’re our own ends. We’re rational and
THE UNIVERSALIZABILITY
autonomous. We have the ability to set our own
FORMULATION
goals, and work toward them
“Act only according to that maxim which you can at
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: THE
the same time will that it should become a universal
law without contradiction.” KINGDOM
OF ENDS FORMULATION UTILITARIANISM: KEY CONCEPTS
“Act as though through your maxims you could - Principle of Utility (usefulness)
become a legislator of universal laws” - Consequences vs Motives
- Happiness – Pleasure > Pain
- Every rational being must so act as if he were
- Greatest Happiness Principle
through his maxim always a legislating member in
- Pleasures of Sensation vs Pleasures of Intellect
a universal kingdom of ends.
- Quantity vs Quality of Pleasure
LESSON 6
THE GREATEST HAPPINESS PRINCIPLE
UTILITARIANISM: JOHN STUART MILL
(PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY)
JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873)
“The greatest happiness of the greatest number of
- Father James Mill (1773-1836), a follower of people should be the guiding principle of conduct.”
Jeremy Bentham, home schooled JS Mill,
- Actions are understood to be right with respect
particularly on the Benthamite Doctrine: it is the
to their capacity to promote happiness and
greatest happiness of the greatest number that is
wrong when they tend to promote
the measure of right and wrong; raised and trained
unhappiness.
him to carry on the cause of utilitarianism
- HAPPINESS, as defined by Mill, is pleasure
- At the age of three he was taught Greek. By the
and the absence of pain, while unhappiness is
age of eight, he had read Aesop's Fables,
pain or the absence of pleasure.
Xenophon's Anabasis, and the whole of Herodotus,
- PLEASURE and the FREEDOM from pain
and was acquainted with Lucian, Diogenes
are the only things desirable as ends; all
Laërtius, Isocrates and six dialogues of Plato. He
desirable things are desired either because they
had also read a great deal of history in English and
are inherently pleasurable or because they
had been taught arithmetic, physics and
contribute to the prevention of pain
astronomy.
- Happiness (the predominance of pleasure over
- Mill’s Utilitarian theory is a development and
pain) is the goal of morality.
clarification of Jeremy Bentham’s doctrine.
- Must take into account the potential effects of
- Mill’s moral theory is considered as
one’s actions on other people’s happiness.
consequentialist in that it judges the rightness and
- Deciding on one’s happiness is not a solitary
wrongness of actions based on their consequences.
affair but an act which essentially brings to the
JEREMY BENTHAM’S fore one’s relationship with others.

FELICIFIC/HEDONISTIC CALCULUS UTILITARIANISM - EXAMPLES,

SCENARIOS
- A method/guide to balance the pros and cons of
a proposed course of action in relation to the 1. Terrorist holding hostages
balance of pleasures and pains it potentially 2. Smoking ban
produces. 3. Freedom of speech, religion, movement
4. Organ Transplant
Guide Questions: 5. The Trolley Problem
1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure? 6. Batman and the Joker

2. Duration: How long does the pleasure last? OBJECTION 1:

3. Certainty or Uncertainty: How likely or unlikely that UTILITARIANISM IS A “SWINISH” DOCTRINE

the pleasure will occur? OBJECTION: UTILITARIANISM ONLY
4. Propinquity or Remoteness: How soon does the APPEALS TO PLEASURE.
pleasure occur?
5. Fecundity: What is the probability that the action is
Utilitarianism seems to degrade the nature of the
followed by sensations of the same kind?
human person by reducing morality to a pleasure-
6. Purity: What is the probability that it is not followed driven activity, not unlike that of an animal’s life that
by sensations of the opposite kind? seeks only to multiply pleasure and avoid pain.

7. Extent: How many people are affected? MILL’S RESPONSE:

 - Utilitarian doctrine makes a concrete distinction * because of the emphasis on consequences of one’s
between higher and lower forms of pleasure. It actions leading to one’s happiness.
does not advocate a life of reckless abandon and
MILL’S RESPONSE:
non-stop partying.
- Some kinds of pleasure are more desirable than - Utilitarianism does recognize the goodness of
others. self-sacrifice which places the welfare of
- “Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all others over and above one’s own, but only to
who have experience of both give a decided the extent that it is done for the sake of
preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral promoting the greatest happiness of the
obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable greatest number
pleasure.” - If self-sacrifice is merely done for its own
- Pleasures of the intellect are of a higher order sake, then utilitarianism sees it as a waste
than pleasures of sensation. - Utilitarianism not only promotes the happiness
of the agent but of all concerned who
OBJECTION 2: HAPPINESS IS
potentially experience the consequences of the
UNATTAINABLE agent’s act. A person must be as impartial as
Objection: Happiness is unattainable because many possible in weighing his happiness against that
things* thwart one’s attempts at being happy of others.
- Utilitarianism upholds the belief that a truly
(poverty, disease, failed relationships, war, calamities, moral person always tries to incorporate the
accidents, failed prelims, etc ...) good of others in every decision he makes.

OBJECTION 4:
MILL’S RESPONSE: SOCIAL CONCERN IS A RARE MOTIVE
- The life of happiness defined in his theory is FOR ACTION
not a continuity of highly pleasurable
OBJECTION: PEOPLE DON’T NORMALLY
excitement but an existence made up of few,
transitory pains mixed in with different
HAVE SOCIETY IN MIND WHENEVER
pleasures of varying types and levels, with a THEY
predominance of pleasure over pain. CHOOSE A COURSE OF ACTION
- A satisfied and happy life is mainly composed
of a balance between tranquility and MILL’S RESPONSE:
excitement.
- A great number of actions are meant to benefit
Those who find no happiness are generally those individuals rather than the great majority.
who: - A distinction must be made between motives and
consequences as to which one should be the basis
- care for no one but themselves (family and for judging the morality of an action
friendship ties) - Most actions are not done with the motive of
- lack mental cultivation (finding pleasure their duty towards others
through nature, poetry, art, sports, - So far as morality is concerned, the act itself is
- science) moral so long as it promotes the good of the
greatest number, regardless of the agent’s
motive.
- Happiness is attainable if one understands it - The motive says something about the kind of
realistically and lives one’s life in solidarity person doing the act, but it does not say anything
with others and cultivates one’s deeper capacity about the morality of the action.
to enjoy that which endures in the transitory. - One needs only attend to the good of the few
who shall potentially reap the benefit of one’s
OBJECTION 3:
actions.
UTILITARIAN MORALITY IS
CAN BATMAN KILL THE JOKER? HE
INCOMPATIBLE WITH SELF-SACRIFICE
KANT.
OBJECTION: MILL’S THEORY DOES NOT
Utilitarianism says he should, forthe greater good.
RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF SELF-
SACRIFICE*
UTILITARIANISM: A DEMANDING
THEORY
We live in a world where sometimes people do terrible
things, and if we’re the ones who happen to be there,
and we can do something to make things better, we
must.
Even if that means getting our hands dirty.

UTILITARIANISM: TWO
FORMS/VERSIONS
ACT UTILITARIANISM / CLASSICAL
UTILITARIANISM

 In any given situation you should choose the

action that produces the greatest good for the
greatest number.
RULE UTILITARIANISM

 We ought to live by rules that, in general, are

likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest
number.

THE ULTIMATE SANCTION

• External sanctions (social, cultural, supernatural)
enforce the utilitarian principle but they do not compel
one to follow it.

External Sanctions:

 Fear of displeasing God.

- Those who think that a good act is that which
promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest
number must also believe that this is what God
approves.

 Fear of disapproval from other people

- If one does what is right because one fears
punishment by society be it legal (fine,
imprisonment, electric chair) or extra-legal
(social ostracisation, marginalization,
viralization, shaming on social media), Mill finds
that such a motive is compatible with the
doctrine of utility for it essentially aims for the
happiness of the greatest number.
Internal Sanction:

 Conscience