* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Ian Horkan ERH-207W Mr. Morgan Word Count: 1641 The Injustice
Survey
Document related concepts
Ethical intuitionism wikipedia , lookup
Secular morality wikipedia , lookup
Alasdair MacIntyre wikipedia , lookup
Moral responsibility wikipedia , lookup
Potentiality and actuality wikipedia , lookup
Bernard Williams wikipedia , lookup
Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup
Thomas Hill Green wikipedia , lookup
Kantian ethics wikipedia , lookup
Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals wikipedia , lookup
Aristotelian ethics wikipedia , lookup
Critique of Practical Reason wikipedia , lookup
Consequentialism wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Ian Horkan ERH-207W Mr. Morgan Word Count: 1641 The Injustice of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism, otherwise known as doing what is best for the greater good, presents complex ethical questions for those in positions of power. Often when people contemplate utilitarianism, doing what is best for the greatest number of people has a strong logical appeal. Why not act in favor of the majority, and ensure that the course of action taken benefits the largest amount of people? However, often when thinking along these lines, something seems to block human’s decision making when they think about acting in a utilitarian way. It appears to them that discounting the minority seems wrong, and complicates their moral and ethical reasoning. I firmly believe that utilitarianism is incompatible with justice, but that does not mean that it is not “good” to act in a utilitarian way. In this essay, I will discuss various concepts of justice from Plato to Aristotle to Immanuel Kant and how their concepts of justice are incompatible with utilitarianism. Consequently, I will take into consideration dissenters to my opinion such as David Hume, and disprove how their opinion are false. Utilitarianism as an ethical principal was developed in England during the 19th century by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham, considered the founder of utilitarianism, was a proponent of hedonism. Hedonism is the belief that happiness is equal to pleasures, while unhappiness is equal to pain. Using this belief, Bentham developed his” Principle of Utility” where the greatest happiness of the majority is the measure of right and wrong, and by extension justice. Building off Bentham’s theories, Mill further developed utilitarianism into the theory it is today. Mill developed his “Greatest Happiness Principle” 1 where actions are right when they produce happiness, wrong when they promote the reverse of happiness (Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2). Based upon Platonic philosophy, there are several reasons why utilitarianism is incompatible with justice. These reasons center primarily on Plato’s Theory of the Forms (Plato, The Republic). What this theory says’s that for each object and concept, there is a universal “form” that exists for all (Plato, The Republic). Therefore, there is one universal form of justice that exists universally. Based upon this concept, the idea of justice is inflexible, as the standards for one society’s concept of justice are the same in spirit as another’s. The conclusion can be drawn from this that even if in some society utilitarianism acts in such a way that it is just, it still is overall unjust because of the universal Form of Justice. If for example, a population believed that killing their parents when they reached a certain age because they believe it expedited their journey to paradise, as well as preserving from the shame of becoming infirm in a warrior culture, as was done in Fiji (Westermark 389), at its core it would still be an unjust act because of the way a majority of the world’s population perceives killing of parents. By killing their parents for the good of the population, Fijians acted in a utilitarian way, but the fact that the rest of the population refuses to do this presents a conundrum. Essentially it means that the Fijians had incorrectly interpreted the Form of Justice, because if the rest of the world believes that this version of utilitarianism violates just actions, then it is more than likely that they have correctly interpreted the Form of Justice. Plato defines this form of justice as social justice, or justice in society the same way that utilitarianism seeks to act (Plato, The Republic, Book I). Acting in a just manner, according to Plato, is when a society acts according to their specializations, when everyone performs their job, hypothesized by him as Guardians, 2 Auxiliaries, and Producers (Plato, The Republic, Book II). These Fijians, by acting out of accordance with norms that are acknowledged by the rest of human society, likely acted outside of their specialization, resulting in their actions being perceived as unjust. Aristotle’s philosophy too shows the incompatibility of justice and utilitarianism. Aristotle acknowledges that justice deals in relations with others (Aristotle, Nicomachaen Ethics, Book II) thereby establishing a connection between justice and utilitarianism, as utilitarianism is by definition dealing with what is the greatest good for people. Aristotle also defines justice in two separate ways: as particular justice and universal justice (Aristotle, Nicomachaen Ethics, Book II). Aristotle said that particular justice dealt with equally divisible goods, whether it be honor, money or safety where people can lose things, while universal justice is the state of a person who is lawful and fair (Aristotle, Nicomachaen Ethics, Book II). By these definitions, utilitarianism cannot be just at all. By choosing one group, in this case the majority, to favor by doing an action or actions that benefit them over another group, you are denying the fairness that Aristotle believed must be present in universal justice. Immanuel Kant’s philosophy also illustrates the incompatibility of justice and utilitarianism. In Kant’s philosophy, pure reason is the source of moral knowledge, and that the only good is goodwill (Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Chapter 1). Going off this, Kant states that only good actions are based upon doing a person’s sole duty, and that moral and just actions are only that is they are done with the sole motivation of duty (Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Chapter 2). In utilitarianism, since you are taking action for the greater good, you are not acting strictly with the motive of duty. The concept of duty is acting for strictly moral purposes, so if for example during a storm aid was given to one 3 city over another because it had more people and was a large industrial center, this would not be an act of duty. In this example the person making the decision is not acting out of strictly moral principles, but rather out of one that says how can I do the most good. Kant’s philosophy does not necessarily care about the ends of an action, only the means by which the action was taken. Examining utilitarianism through Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative also illustrates how incompatible it is with justice. In Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative, one takes a maxim that they wish to test and apply it as if it was a law of nature, if this is an illogical way to act, then one should not adopt that maxim (Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Chapter 2). If we took the governing idea of utilitarianism, that one should act to maximize the pleasure for the most people, and always acted on that, it would create a distinctly unjust world. Primarily, it would lead to a section of the population being complete de-prioritized and disenfranchised, as their pleasure is never taken into account since they do not fall into the majority. Additionally, if this was always applied it could have even more drastic and dark consequences for those who are not in the majority. For example, if to create a vaccine for a virus it needed to be hosted inside of a human body, and it needed as many individuals as possible, then 49% of the population would be sacrificed, a distinctly unjust outcome. In utilitarianism, the ends are the central goal, as the objective of utilitarianism and what determines the justice of an action is determined by maximizing happiness for the greatest amount of people. Opposed to the idea that justice is not feasible in a utilitarianism system are realist philosophers like John Stuart Mill. Mill would likely counter that utilitarianism is just because of its ability to maximize pleasure, and by extension good, for the most people. It would be unjust 4 he would likely argue, to make decisions in accordance with a rule that worried about pleasure for all, because it does not ensure that the majority of people will receive the maximum amount of pleasure, thereby failing to do the best for the most people, and have the most impactful effect (Mill, On Utilitarianism). However, Mill contradicts himself on this idea in earlier writings, describing the injustice of the tyranny of the majority. Mill describes how in democracy the majority has the capability to railroad the interest and rights of the minority simply by the virtue of winning the vote (Mill, On Liberty). In utilitarianism, following this reasoning, acting to maximize pleasure for the most effectively “gives them a vote”. Since in utilitarianism you should always act in the way you can do the most good for the most people, this practically guarantees tyranny of the majority, which mill himself describes as unjust. Utilitarianism and justice present a complicated moral conundrum for people. One one hand, acting for the benefit of the majority empirically appears correct. It seems to be the most successful course of action and the one that will most likely lead to prosperity for the most people. But as human beings we are drawn to justice. It seems to us, something that defines us from animals and the uncivilized because we can reason what is right and wrong. Acting strictly utilitarian in nature can blur that line and lead to less and less right decisions, possibly compromising humanity’s moral compass. 5 Works Cited Hume, David. "An Enquiry into the Sources of Morals." (n.d.): n. pag. Earlymodertexts.com. Jonathan Bennett, May 2007. Web. 16 Mar. 2016. "The Internet Classics Archive | Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle." The Internet Classics Archive | Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2016. "The Internet Classics Archive | The Republic by Plato." The Internet Classics Archive | The Republic by Plato. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2016. Kant, Immanuel. "The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals." (n.d.): 1-17. Earlymodrntexts.com. Jonathan Bennett, July 2005. Web. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. 1859. Mill, John Stuart. On Utilitarianism. 1863. 6