2017-11-01
556
The answer given by the 18th century German philosopher Emmanuel Kant is commonly called ‘deontological’ or ‘duty-based’ ethics. For Kant, my action is morally right if I act with the intention of fulfilling my moral duties.
What counts as a moral duty? Kant believes that there is a general moral law that determines all our moral duties. He offers several formulations of this law, which he believes are equivalent to each other.
According to one of these formulations, our duty is to act in a way that would respect the people involved (both me and others) as rational, autonomous individuals. More accurately, we should treat people not only as a means for some purpose, but also as having their own inherent worth as persons. For example, it would be morally wrong for me to enslave another person, because I would be using him as a tool for my own satisfaction. Similarly, it would be wrong for me to lie to somebody, because I would be manipulating her without respecting her right to know and decide freely.
From this perspective, when I face an ethical dilemma I should ask myself: How can I fulfill my duty to respect people as rational, autonomous persons? In other words, how do I behave in a way that would respect their right to control their lives, their rights over their property, their responsibility for their actions, etc.?
JOHN STUART MILL – AS MUCH HAPPINESS AS POSSIBLE
The 19th century British philosopher John Stuart Mill offers a different answer (which he developed from Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy). From his perspective, an action is morally right or wrong only if it influences people’s happiness or suffering. If it makes no difference to anybody, then it is neither right nor wrong.
What makes my action right or wrong is its consequences: It is morally right if it adds to the world more happiness (or less suffering) than alternative actions which I could have performed. It is morally wrong if it produces more suffering (or less happiness) than another action which I could have performed.
|
|
|
Thus, whenever I am free to choose between several actions, I ought to choose the one that would bring as much happiness to as many people as possible (including me). For example, I should tell the truth rather than lie whenever the truth is likely to bring more happiness than the lie. But I should lie when the lie is likely to result in more happiness.
Mill called his approach ‘utilitarianism’, because it tells us to maximize ‘utility’, which for him meant happiness.
From this perspective, when I face an ethical dilemma I should ask myself: How do I act in a way that would add as much happiness to as many people (including me) as possible?
A popular sub-type of utilitarianism (which perhaps Mill himself believed) should be mentioned here: rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism focuses not on the happiness produced by one particular action, but on the happiness produced by TYPES of actions. It focuses, for example, not on the consequences of my particular lie, but on the consequences of lies in general.
Accordingly, when I face an ethical dilemma I should ask myself: If most people acted like me, which type of action would result in the most happiness to the world?
