Furious Ethics Part II: Kant and the Utilitarians

Furious Ethics II: It's the Thought that Kant's

Now that Aristotle and Plato have been thoroughly refuted, it is time to discuss the Utilitarians. We will be examining the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The initial presumption of the Utilitarians holds some merit: that laws and morals should be based on that which is most useful to the people affected. And how does one determine what is useful? From the teachings of Bentham it is that which causes more pleasure than pain. Again, these are valid assumptions. Pleasure and pain are built into all people as guides for action: pain is the bodies way of saying "Don't do that," such as willfully grabbing an electric fence, and pleasure is the bodies way of saying, "Yes by all means carry on," such as eating a hearty meal. Therefore, to determine the moral action in any situation one must consider the pleasures and pains for all involved and choose the course of action to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

But Michael, surely attempting to apply universal rules to individual situations is absurd! Suppose there was an island, and an imminent explosion threatened the lives of all its inhabitants. Now also suppose that you have a boat containing enough gasoline to rescue people from only one side of the island, but your mother is on one side and ten strangers are on the other side! Who do you save?! What does your precious Utilitarianism suggest in this situation?!

First of all Ceph, your blatant overuse of exclamation points irks me to no end. This is the written word, please try to calm yourself. As for your thought experiment, will that ever happen? Will I ever find myself in that situation? Will you ever find yourself in that situation? The answer is a clear, definitive no. Please don't attempt to direct the discussion into a sink of unproductive, futile arguments over improbable and bizarre situations. We are interested in ethics pertaining to the lives of normal people, not the ethics of absurd circumstances. Now, one real dispute over Utilitarianism is whether the pleasure versus pain doctrine is capable of determining morality and not simply matters of personal preference. It is often asked whether the joys of reading Joyce can be compared with the pleasure of a glass of wine. Either way, the choice whether to read a book or partake in a glass of wine hardly seems to be one of morality.

So you are asserting that Utilitarianism is helpful when making trivial decisions, but wouldn't necessarily apply to tough ethical dilemmas. It also seems that a problem of weighing the suffering of one against the pleasure of many would appear.

Yes yes, suffering of few, enjoyment of many. I think we've pussyfooted around the real issue here for long enough though: Bentham was an innovator in the worst possible sense. He tried to sell his dubious theory of ethics with a bullshit marketing term. To determine which actions cause more pleasure or pain, he needed a system for adding pleasure; he called his system Hedonic calculus. Now Ceph, when I take several quantities and add them together, what is that?

A sum?

Correct. There is no calculus involved. If Bentham devised a method for writing a mathematical equation of pleasure as a function of actions, took the derivative of the function and set it equal to zero, then he could label the system hedonic calculus, but such a notion is preposterous. Instead, Bentham thought he could sell an inferior product, his ethical system, with misleading and pretentious marketing terms.

Such a plot is devious and reprehensible! But one aspect of Utilitarianism that you have not fully explained is whether one accounts for differing qualities of pleasure. Surely without allowances for such considerations, following these teachings would convert the noblest man into a brutish beast!

I'm happy you asked that Ceph, although since you're just a character I made up, it's pretty easy to make you say anything I want. Regardless, Bentham taught that there was no difference in quality of pleasure, only difference in quantity that accounts for intellectual pleasures. For example, one can recall a poem over and over but the pleasure from a mug of beer is temporary. Mill, however, asserted that intellectual pleasures are of higher quality than gluttonous pleasures, and even made the claim that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. To illustrate how misleading this claim is, I made a graph of Intelligence Vs. Satisfaction.

As you can see, it is better to be Socrates than a pig, but it is also better to be a dolphin than Socrates. And oddly enough, it is better to be David Bowie than Aristotle, because let's face it, Nicomachean ethics doesn't hold a candle to Space Oddity (then again, Aristotle was never rumored to have had homosexual relations with Mick Jagger, but at this point we're splitting hairs). Such comparisons may be fun, but are hardly the basis for serious intellectual discussion.

I think we are done with the Utilitarians, and it is now time for a cursory examination of the unusual views held by Immanuel Kant. He is of the school of philosophers who start with a tremendous presupposition; in his case it is the assumption that ethics are determined from reason alone. This curious idea leads him to odd conclusions, such as that duty is the only important factor in determining the ethical course of action; and that an action is only morally praiseworthy if you don't want to do it. For example, if your friend is drowning and you save him, that is not morally praiseworthy; if your enemy is drowning and you save him, then you have done something moral.

Wow. That's messed up.

See, the problem with all of these guys is that they tried to make universal rules to apply to any situation, but there will always be exceptions. As a result, philosophy becomes a tedious exercise in arguing over whose universal rules have the most flaws, and improbable situations become the weapons against opposing ideas. Such discussions are long, boring, and unproductive. I suggest disregarding Kant and the Utilitarians.

Stay tuned for the culmination of Furious Ethics where I propose my own ethical system. And for those who aren't completely familiar with Kant, he focuses on motives rather than consequences, which is the explanation of the pun in the title.

Furious Ethics 1