Philosophy

by Sharon Kaye

  Good will

  Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will. Intelligence, wit, judgement, and the other talents of the mind, however they may be named, or courage, resolution, perseverance, as qualities of temperament, are undoubtedly good and desirable in many respects; but these gifts of nature may also become extremely bad and mischievous if the will which is to make use of them, and which, therefore, constitutes what is called character, is not good. It is the same with the gifts of fortune. Power, riches, honour, even health, and the general well-being and contentment with one's condition which is called happiness, inspire pride, and often presumption, if there is not a good will to correct the influence of these on the mind, and with this also to rectify the whole principle of acting and adapt it to its end. The sight of a being who is not adorned with a single feature of a pure and good will, enjoying unbroken prosperity, can never give pleasure to an impartial rational spectator. Thus a good will appears to constitute the indispensable condition even of being worthy of happiness.

  Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Books/Kant?MM/Part1.html)

  Kant points out that you should know what it is to treat someone as an end in itself because you are probably accustomed to treating yourself that way. Healthy people treat themselves as valuable for their own sakes.

  Consequently, many of Kant’s readers feel that, in the end, Kant’s ethical theory really amounts to little more than the age-old wisdom found in many religions, including Christianity, known as the Golden Rule: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’

  Though Kant was a Christian, he did not want to reduce his ethical theory to the Golden Rule. After all, it’s easy enough to imagine someone who treats others as valuable for their own sake without actually regarding them as such. For example, I might refrain from clocking you for annoying me while all the while despising you and wishing you were dead.

  For Kant, this will not do at all. To regard others as ends in themselves is not just to act as though you value them but to actually value them for their own sakes. This is to say that Kant’s deontology is fundamentally concerned with the internal attitude or motive of the truly moral agent, which he calls good will. Kant maintains that having a good will means doing your duty, which means universalizing your proposed actions because you regard others as ends in themselves.

  Kant cautions that having good will in no way guarantees happiness. In fact, you may make yourself utterly miserable trying to be a moral person. But in trying to be a moral person you will at least be worthy of happiness, which is far more important, in his view, than actually being happy. If this approach to ethics is not your cup of tea, stay tuned for a diametrically opposed approach, coming to us via John Stuart Mill, in the next chapter.

  Key ideas

  A priori synthetic: The category of knowledge that does not depend on experience, even though it shapes that very experience

  Categorical imperative: A universal moral requirement

  Deontology: Ethical theory according to which rational beings discover the moral law within themselves in the form of duty

  End in itself: Something that’s worth having for its own sake

  Good will: The internal attitude or motivation of the truly moral agent

  Hypothetical imperative: An ‘If … then’ statement that premises moral obligation upon a desired outcome

  Maxim: A proposed course of action

  Means to an end: Something that’s worth having for the sake of something else

  Noumenal realm: Things in themselves

  Phenomenal realm: Things as they appear to the human mind

  Transcendental idealism: The idea that the human mind does not experience ultimate reality but constructs a world of appearances

  Fact-check

  1 Kant’s ethical theory is based on…

  a Finding happiness

  b Hypothetical imperatives

  c The Golden Rule

  d Good will

  2 For which of the following reasons is Kant called a transcendental idealist?

  a He thinks the physical world is an illusion

  b He thinks ultimate reality is beyond human experience

  c He thinks all moral actions are universalizable

  d He thinks morality is relative to the culture you happen to belong to

  3 Why can’t rational agents disobey the categorical imperative, according to Kant?

  a It would be self-contradictory

  b It would make them unhappy

  c It would violate the Golden Rule

  d It would be too risky

  4 Which of the following is an example of a categorical imperative?

  a Be generous

  b If you want to be successful, then you should be generous

  c Generosity is the mean between stinginess and prodigality

  d Never look a gift horse in the mouth

  5 Which of the following statements reflects Kant’s view of lying?

  a It’s not wrong if you do it to protect someone else

  b It’s wrong because it involves using people

  c It’s not wrong if you do it to make someone happy

  d It’s wrong because no one wants to live in a world full of liars

  6 In which realm do things-in-themselves exist?

  a The noumenal

  b The phenomenal

  c The physical

  d The material

  7 According to Kant, the problem with rationalism is which of the following?

  a It renders the mind a passive receptacle

  b It leaves us in doubt about the physical world

  c It implies that all values are relative to the culture to which you happen to belong

  d It is self-contradictory

  8 What is the a priori synthetic?

  a A moral maxim derived from the categorical imperative

  b Another name for the phenomenal realm

  c A category of concepts that shape experience without depending on it

  d A hypothetical imperative that implies a self-contradiction

  9 Which of the following is morally admirable, according to Kant?

  a Someone continues to work for social justice even though he doesn’t really care any more

  b Someone allocates a portion of her income to charity every year to get a tax break

  c Someone writes a song for extra money, and the song makes a lot of people happy for many years to come

  d Someone knits her granddaughter a sweater to show she cares, but it turns out too small and prickly to wear

  10 Which of the following are things-in-themselves, in Kant’s view?

  a Actions that conform to the moral law

  b Physical objects

  c Time and space

  d Perfectly rational minds

  Dig deeper

  C. Korsgaard, Creating the Kingdom of Ends (Cambridge University Press, 1996).

  A. Wood, Kant (Blackwell, 2005)

  Virginia Heyer Young, Ruth Benedict: Beyond Relativity, Beyond Pattern (University of Nebraska Press, 2005)

  10

  Mill and happiness

  ‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.’

  John Stuart Mill

  In this chapter you will learn:

  • about Mill’s opposition to Kant

  • why utilitarians think you should care about everyone’s happiness

  • how Bentham proposed to quantify pleasure

  • why utilitarianism has led Singer to controversial views in applied ethics

  • the significance of Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures

  • the difference between act and rule utilitarianism

  • about Mill’s landmark defence of free speech.

  Thought experiment: runaway trolley

  You’ve just started a new job at an
amusement park supervising a ride that tours a reconstruction of New York City at the turn of the twentieth century. Riders learn some history and enjoy the old-world ambiance as they move up and down the realistic streets in trolley cars.

  Your job is to sit in an observation booth on a bridge over the entrance to the ride and make sure everything goes smoothly. It’s an easy job, insofar as the trolleys are almost completely automated, starting, stopping and turning in accordance with their programming. You have a control panel that tells you whether everything is in working order, along with a lever that enables you to switch the trolleys on to a sidetrack when they need maintenance.

  For its finale, the trolley moves to the top of a hill and then slowly descends, giving its occupants a breathtaking view of New York Harbor. You have a great vantage point and like watching the people enjoying themselves. After you’ve been less than an hour on the job, however, disaster strikes.

  A red light on your control panel starts blinking as a trolley climbs to the top of the final hill. The trolley’s failsafe chain did not successfully engage. Fortunately, the failsafe chain is only needed in case the brakes fail. You’ll simply switch the trolley to the sidetrack for maintenance.

  As you watch the trolley begin its decent, however, a long low alarm begins to sound in your booth, signifying brake failure. You jump up in horror. The trolley is gaining momentum fast. Its five occupants begin screaming. They are heading straight towards a cement wall – with no seatbelts. Your control panel tells you that they are already approaching 100 km per hour (60 mph).

  In a moment they will reach the split to the sidetrack, which makes a large circle into a maintenance area. If you switch the trolley to the sidetrack, it will miss the cement wall and slow down of its own accord.

  You grip the lever. Just before you pull it, however, you catch sight of one of the maintenance workers kneeling on the sidetrack. He seems to be tightening a bolt. He is completely unaware of the runaway trolley.

  Your situation instantly crystallizes in your mind like frost on a freezing winter day. If you switch the trolley to the sidetrack, it will kill the maintenance man. If you don’t make the switch, the inevitable crash will kill or seriously injure the five occupants of the trolley.

  What should you do? What will you do?

  Glancing back at the runaway trolley, you see a mother holding her infant child on board… Glancing back at the maintenance man, you suddenly recognize him as a good friend of yours…

  Does any of this make a difference to your decision? Should it?

  Do the right thing!

  The runaway trolley thought experiment elaborated above is famous in philosophical circles for testing moral intuitions. As with the thought experiment at the opening of Chapter 1, people disagree widely about what to do and why. Many different versions have been invented, all with interesting implications.

  The first point for us to note is that it’s not clear what Kant’s deontology would recommend. It all depends on exactly how we describe the situation. Suppose we formulate the following maxim:

  ‘One should always strive to protect people from harm.’

  Because you would fulfil this maxim five times over by saving the family on the runaway trolley, it seems you should switch the track. But suppose we formulate the following maxim instead:

  ‘One should never deliberately harm someone.’

  Because you would violate this maxim by causing the runaway trolley to hit the maintenance man, it seems you should not switch the track, allowing the family to crash into the cement wall.

  Perhaps Kant’s deontology can be interpreted in such a way as to yield a decisive answer in this situation. But perhaps not. And, if not, then it’s inadequate, because ethical theories are supposed to be practical – guiding us in real-life moral dilemmas.

  Utilitarianism

  No one makes a better foil for Kant than the English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–73). While Kant was an eccentric recluse, Mill was an elected Member of Parliament. While Kant devoted his creative energy to working out the excruciating details of his transcendental vision, Mill lobbied for progressive political causes and was largely unconcerned about epistemological and metaphysical problems. While Kant regards happiness as incidental to morality, Mill regards it as morality’s central aim.

  Spotlight

  Mill was educated at home by his demanding father. He began Classical Greek at age three and Latin at age seven. By the age of 12 he had learned the equivalent of a university degree. At the age of 20 he had a nervous breakdown. (Thanks, Dad.)

  Mill’s theory is called utilitarianism. Utilitarians maintain that, because happiness is the only worthy goal of human life, we must promote it whenever and wherever we can. The ethical act is the one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

  Utilitarianism implies that you should switch the track and save the family because (presumably) more happiness is at stake for five people than for just one, even if he happens to be a good friend of yours. After all, each of the people on the trolley has good friends, too, who would be saddened by their deaths. As a utilitarian, your happiness counts just as much as, but no more than, anyone else’s.

  Unconcerned about the problems Kant and others saw in empiricism, Mill argued for utilitarianism based on experience.

  The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it: and so of the other sources of our experience. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it. If the end which the utilitarian doctrine proposes to itself were not, in theory and in practice, acknowledged to be an end, nothing could ever convince any person that it was so. No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness.

  John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Ch. 4 (http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm)

  It’s not hard to show that each person desires his own happiness, but why should I care about everyone else’s happiness? Mill would insist that, although it’s sometimes difficult to see, our own happiness is completely dependent on the happiness of those around us.

  Imagine that all your dreams have suddenly come true – you are healthy, wealthy and wise. Although you are happier than you ever thought possible, no one else is. Everyone at home, at work, and in your neighbourhood is miserable. You walk down the street humming merrily to yourself and see nothing but tears and scowls everywhere you go. Could you remain happy in this situation? Mill thinks not.

  Hedonism

  Mill did not invent utilitarianism. It was the brainchild of his father’s friend Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), who was a philosopher in his own right. Bentham advocated hedonism, following the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BC), whose great advice to humankind was to eat, drink and be merry.

  Bentham goes beyond Epicurus, however, in proposing a system, known as the hedonic calculus, for quantifying pleasure. In order to determine what action is right in a given situation, we should use the following criteria to measure the pleasure that may come of it:

  1 Intensity (How strong is the pleasure?)

  2 Duration (How long is the pleasure likely to last?)

  3 Certainty (How likely is the act to produce the expected pleasure?)

  4 Propinquity (How soon is the act expected to produce the pleasure?)

  5 Fecundity (Is this pleasure liable to produce more pleasure?)

  6 Purity (Is this pleasure likely to be accompanied or followed by pain?)

  7 Extent (How many people will experience the pleasure?)

  Applying these criteria may yield surprising answers to moral dilemmas.

  Suppose, for example, on a given afternoon, you have to choose between attending a friend’s birthday party and helping your grandmother move to a retirement hom
e. According to tradition, helping an aging relative is more important than partying. It’s entirely possible, however, that the hedonic calculus would produce the opposite answer. If you and your friend really enjoy one another’s company while you and your grandmother really don’t, then you may be morally obligated to ignore tradition and have some fun.

  Of course, following the hedonic calculus requires anticipating the future and estimating people’s reactions, which can be a tricky business. Bentham and Mill agree, however, that such judgements are crucial for moral agency. Although no moral agent can hope to be entirely free from error in such judgements, we can all hope to improve through diligent observation.

  Lazy Town

  Mill sets happiness as the highest good and defines happiness specifically in terms of enjoying pleasure and avoiding pain. In so doing, he opens himself up to the objection that he is bound to create a base and repugnant society. After all, the art, literature, science and technology that make our civilization great took a lot of hard work. And hard work usually isn’t so very pleasant.

  Case study: Peter Singer and applied ethics

  Towards the end of the twentieth century, philosophers carved out a new category of philosophy called applied ethics, which explores the implications of ethical theory for contemporary moral issues. Business ethics, environmental ethics and bioethics are three major areas of applied ethics.

  Perhaps the most famous philosopher working in applied ethics today is the Australian Peter Singer (1956– ). Singer has argued for a number of highly controversial utilitarian solutions to moral problems.

  At the crux of Singer’s interpretation of utilitarianism is the thesis that all and only beings with preferences are capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, and hence are worthy of ethical consideration. He draws the following conclusions: