‘What makes an issue ethical?’ Most young readers would not be able to answer this question. But before answering this question, a better question is ‘what is ethical?’ Ethics is a set of unwritten rules of moral behaviour and values within communities. This means that these set of ‘rules’ determine whether you are doing the right thing or the wrong thing. An ethical issue is an issue where there is conflict on what a certain person or organization is doing. The actions of the person or organization are evaluated as either right (ethical) or wrong (unethical). There are multiple approaches to avoid all conflict so that no issue arises.  A main consideration is Utilitarianism in which you consider the usefulness of a decision before making it so that it pleases most others. In other words, think before you act. When wanting to seek revenge on someone, it is best to think before you act before something worse happens. An ethical approach would be to forgive the person.

Subjectivism is also a key factor in avoiding conflict, but can also be brought out incorrectly depending on the person’s thoughts. Subjectivism is deciding by your own self-esteem and for yourself, through your own experiences, whether your actions are right or wrong. Deciding for yourself can sometimes be an incorrect decision because some people are unable to tell right from wrong due to their own experiences in life. An example of correct usage of subjectivism would be a person seeing a fight and stopping it rather than cheering it on with other bystanders. Situational ethics is making a decision in terms of the situation. With this approach, the actions seem unethical but the situation that they are placed in makes it ethical. For example, Breaking a window, to escape a fire or assaulting a stranger, in self defence. Without the specified situations, the actions are deemed unethical. A problem with relativism is that it asserts each person has the right to choose what is right or wrong that they can’t adopt themselves.

Relativism is a person’s ‘truth’ which is actually a belief. An example of relativism is hitting a person back because you believe it is the right thing to do. The opposite of relativism is Natural Law in which we believe that every person has an innate behaviour and are born a raised with a correct understanding of human morals. The Catholic Church believes that the Natural Law was adopted from the 10 commandments and without the Commandments, there would be no innate behaviour of ethics because there would be no guide for the first few people to live. The Catholic Church also believes that the ‘innate’ understanding of ethics is God’s creation. In my opinion, I believe that natural law is correct and that we are all born with some understanding of ethical and unethical situations but sometimes it can be personal experiences that make up your mind.

In a pluralist society, it would be complex to make ethical decisions because the society is diverse and what seems normal to some could be very different to others. A pluralistic society is a society which the community are able to legally choose their own ethical views and what ethical beliefs, if any, they wish to hold. It is similar to relativism in a sense that people are able to have their own ethical views but it is different in a sense that the society is allowed to have their own ethical views and few/no laws stopping them. The complexity of this would be that there would be little to no restriction to most people and it could potentially create chaos and possibly continue to the extinction of the human race. An example of this would be choosing to be homosexual rather than heterosexual; the human race would die out in one generation. In a religious point of view, every person has the choice of which religion they wish to believe in and the ethical views that come with it. It would be complex to make ethical decisions because there would be no correct right or wrong, only an opinion of every single person in the society. Although it seems like freedom, the world needs boundaries to survive. To some people murder would be seem as unethical but to others it could possibly be seen as ethical. Seeing murder as ethical is wrong in our society, but in a pluralistic society where everyone has their own choice, the people can choose to think that it is right. Within a Pluralistic society, human rights, responsibilities of individuals and groups of society would be different for nearly every person and wouldn’t even be considered with the same importance that it has today. If there was to be a Pluralist Society, the matter of life or death would be put into the hands of every human being.

The 10 Commandments started of as basic rules for relating to God and to others, but it has gained a greater importance throughout the years. Most of the rules within the 10 Commandments are used for human rights rules and approaches to ethical decision making. It is possible to say that the human race would have eventually arrived at these rules after some time, but with the influence of the 10 Commandments, it sped up the process. I do believe that we would have arrived to the rules eventually to create peace and harmony without the 10 Commandments (even though it would take longer). The 10 Commandments were first created to ‘obey’ God and to keep his creations safe. Most people believed in God and therefore followed the ‘rules’. But the people that didn’t believe in God, they still followed the ‘rules’ because they deemed it to be ethical. If they did not believe in God, why did they still follow ‘God’s rules’? It is because they already had an understanding of peace but had not perfected on how to bring it out, and still in our society today, we still don’t have a solution on how to create ‘world peace’. To create these rules, it would take time and experience throughout your life but it is fair enough to say that the 10 Commandments did help out in solving bits and pieces.

The first objection that Shafer-Landau poses to utilitarianism is that it is always demanding more and more self sacrifice. This is because there is always someone more needy than you are. Therefore if you ever choose to spend money on yourself there is almost always a less expensive alternative, that you would enjoy less, and the money you saved could go to those who are more needy. Therefore utilitarianism has an individual continuously giving almost to the point at which they have reduced themselves to the same state as those they are giving to. In the eyes of many non-utilitarians this amount of self sacrifice is not morally required and therefore utilitarianism is false.

The second objection that Shafer-Landau poses is that utilitarianism claims that no action is intrinsically wrong or right, which means that there is no action that is always going to be right or always going to be wrong. On top of this the wrongness and rightness of actions are not based on its consequences or its symbolism in society but the mere nature of the action. This is because utilitarianism does not care about what the action is, it only cares about the happiness produced by the outcome to determine the wrongness or rightness of the action. Therefore an action such as drowning stray, innocent puppies that have nothing to live for, to non-utilitarians, would seem like it is always wrong to do. In the eyes of a utilitarian, it is possible that drowning puppies is the morally required thing to do if for some weird reason it produces the most happiness. For instance, some troubled child gets great enjoyment out of drowning stray, innocent puppies that have nothing to live for. If nobody ever finds out that he is drowning puppies, there is only good coming out of this situation because he is enjoying it and the puppies are being put out of their misery. Therefore it is the morally required thing for the child to do. Yet, to a non-utilitarian, it seems very wrong to hide in a dark building drowning stray puppies. The outcome of this action is only happiness but the action still seems to be intrinsically wrong. Therefore this shows that utilitarianism is wrong.

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

Value: Justice because the resolved gives us what we are trying to accomplish in today’s debate which is Justice, my case will be focused on accomplishing the resolved, and therefore I must choose Justice as my value which means the quality of being fair and reasonable.

Criteria: Utilitarianism which refers to the most good for the most living creatures. When it comes to matters of the treatment of all living creatures, it is important to make a choice based on the option that is the most fair and reasonable, which can be determined by utilitarianism.

Definitions according to Oxford Dictionaries:
Require – specify as compulsory.
Recognition – acknowledgment of somethings existence, validity, or legality.

and my final definition which may be the most vital in today’s debate is:

Animal Rights – Rights believed to belong to animals to live free from use in medical research, hunting, and other services to humans.

If you put this all together, to affirm this resolved is to say that all humans should be legally obliged to not hunt animals or use them for medical research. I will tell you why this is wrong in my following contentions

1: We Must Test on Animals for Medical Purposes
Sub Point 1:
If we were to require the recognition of animal rights, multiple human lives would be lost because medicine would not be tested. Since diseases are constantly evolving, not producing new medicine would mean a new pandemic every time a new strain of disease comes into existence. It is a small exchange to hurt a few animals to protect millions of human lives from even worse suffering. According to the National Academies Press, “By infecting animals with certain microbes, Koch, Pasteur, and other researchers were able to identify the germs causing anthrax, rabies, diphtheria, and plague. These discoveries have allowed scientists to develop vaccines for animals and people made from weakened germs. “ These tests gave way to the salvation of millions of people.

Sub Point 2:
Furthermore, many surgical advancements arise from the testing on animals. According to the NAP, Organ transplants and coronary artery bypasses require that blood vessels be sewn together. The technique of sewing blood vessels together was developed through surgeries on dogs and cats by Alexis Carrel, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1912. Carrel tested on dogs and cats because these organs had a chance of being rejected and the animals had a chance of dying. The whole world, knowing the consequences of the testing on those dogs and cats tested on, decided that Carrel’s research was worthy of a Nobel Prize.

2: The affirming of this resolved would eliminate animal services such as the police K-9 unit.  
This is because the definition of animal rights includes living free from other services to humans, and therefore the K-9 sector of our executive branch would be nullified.
According to the the El Dorado California Police Department and agreed upon by Police Departments across the US, Police service dogs are currently being used nationwide for high risk searches for suspects hiding in buildings or areas, tracking, search and rescue locating victims, jail/prison systems officer protection and cell extraction of inmates, evidence detection, narcotic detection, explosive detection, accelerant detection, disaster search locating victims, human remains detection, locating victims of avalanches, locating suspects for Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) and lately, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) detection.
As you can see, these K-9’s entire lives are spent as a service to humans, but it is completely worth it.

3: The affirmation of this resolved would eliminate hunting, causing societal chaos.
In almost every society, meat is used as a source of food. In some, meat is necessary for survival, especially in areas of harsh climate where plants don’t grow abundantly. These societies would be forced to abandon their hunting and move to a less extreme climate, causing overpopulation and unnecessary conflict. Furthermore, societies which contain a population of people who’s economy is based around the meat industry would be crushed because an entire sector of the economy would be eliminated at once. Farmers would be out of luck, and all of the people involved with the production and transportation of meat would be forced to find a new lively hood.

It is vital, in order to be fair and reasonable, for people to be able to hunt, use animals for law enforcement and transportation, and above all to be used for medical testing. For all these reasons I stand in firm NEGATION of today’s resolved.

Cover of On Liberty (Broadview Literary Texts)

John Stuart Mill was a philosopher of a great intellect with enormous learning capabilities. From an early age he had been educated by his father, James Mill, who was the leader of a group of intellectuals which adopted Jeremy Bentham’s ideology of utility. He developed a liking for politics and was elected Member of Parliament for Westminster in 1865 until 1868. During this time he gave parliamentary speeches proposing radical liberal reforms.

His essay: ‘On Liberty’ was written in a period of great social change in which traditional values and beliefs were in decline and there were no new ones to take their place. He describes this period as being ‘a critical one’, meaning ‘a period … of criticism and negation, in which mankind lose their old convictions without acquiring any new ones’ (Mill 1873 pp.171). During that age, mankind condemned absolutism. Peasant insurrections and artisan uprisings occurred throughout the continent. The bad harvest of grains and the shortage of food were the crucial elements in the reshaping of Europe because people wanted changes to be made at the highest level. Students protested in Budapest and Prague for a free press, trial by jury, and a representative assembly; demands that were radical at that time, but in accordance with Mill’s theories. New states had emerged and the old ones had redrawn their borders.

On that account, Mill considered that ‘another, more advanced creed’ would bring the peace and the changes that people want (Mill 1873 pp.171). That creed would be a liberal-utilitarian system of belief, which would offer a high grade of liberty to the individual in conjunction with a system of rules and moral codes created specifically to establish a state of happiness for the public. (Riley 1998 pp.4) The main problem on which his essay revolves around is the extent of the liberty of man and the legitimacy of the power exercised by society over him.

He emphasised that every society needs a ruler, even if his power is dangerous, it is also necessary in order to maintain some control over the citizens. Those who do not comply with the rules are punished by the exertion of power of constrain, but who should stop the monarch if he abuses it? Mill says that ‘By liberty was meant protection against the tyranny of the political ruler’ (1859. pp.59) suggesting that people should have a way of limiting his power. This has been attempted by two means: first by obtaining the recognition of certain immunities called political rights which if infringed, resistance or general rebellion was justifiable. Secondly, the establishment of constitutional checks from a representative body was needed in order to give the people power to decide or to give consent in important acts of the process of governing. Most of the time however, the people exercising power were not like those over whom it was exercised and with the method of governing being ‘each for all the rest’ (Mill 1859. pp.62) the possibility of a tyrannical majority coming to power was high.

From that position they can use public authorities to overwhelm the population, but when they are reflecting the citizens it becomes a problem. Society’s means of coercion are not restricted to functionaries. It can impose rules of conduct through law or opinion therefore manipulating the people. For Mill, the liberty of the press is a very important factor in a society because that is the means through which information travels fastest and it can be used to expose tyranny. No government that is one with the people, or not, should impose their view or their beliefs through press or through any other way. Each individual has the right to an opinion which may not be silenced on the emphasis that it is wrong; because no judgement is infallible so that it can state with absolute certainty if a concept is true or not. Suppressing an opinion determines the denial of its validity and if it is valid, such an act is equivalent to robbery because ‘it deprives people of the chance to exchange error for truth’. In Mill’s view, ‘judgement is given to men that they may use it’ (1859. pp.75-80), therefore an individual must not be constrained just because he might act erroneously; nor can an opinion be silenced just because people can interpret it wrong. They have the right to hear and discuss both sides of an argument in order to create an opinion on behalf of which they are free to act as long as it is at their own expense and risk.

In his essay, Mill emphasises the importance of actions because they should not be as free as opinion and even so, if one incites people to terrible acts which harm others, the exertion of the power of constraint is perfectly justifiable (Mill 1859.pp.119-120). Harm is the main principle in ‘On Liberty’. This is the only limitation to the freedom of an individual; the only reason for which power can be exercised in a rightful manner over a member of society. In matters that only concern him, the individual has absolute independence; he is sovereign over himself. But this concept applies only to mature people. On this particular subject, Mill differentiates the reasons of punishment by law and punishment by opinion; just because the acts of one individual may be hurtful to others or wanting to be, without going to the length of violating their rights there is no need for punishment by law (Mill 1859.pp.141-144). The opinion advocated against that act is considered sufficient punishment. This is a concept easy to comprehend. Mill stated that people can and will use this in their daily interactions with others.

The liberties defended in his book come from the author’s utilitarian background. They are not of divine right or under moral obligation of the rulers. Mill argues that they are designed to bring direct benefits to every individual, who will help society to progress in all its areas: education, culture etc. This leaves room for critics to say that economic differences can constrain members from attending all of the gatherings that may lead to new ideas and discoveries. Mill acknowledges that some individuals will prosper more than others and that brings the main criticism of social inequality into light. These gray parts of his work will continually be questioned because they are relevant to the understanding of liberalism; but over the years, liberal intellectuals have tried to find ways through which to cover the gaps that modern society found in Mill’s theory.

Bibliography

Cowie, L.W. et al. (1969) European History – Europe 1789-1939.

Bristol: Western Printing Services

Johnston, I. (1999) Lecture notes on Mill’s On Liberty [online resource] Available at: http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/introser/mill2.htm  [Accessed: 08.11.2010]

Mill, John Stuart. (Ed.) (1859) On Liberty, intro by Himmelfarb, G. 1974 England: Clays Ltd, St Ives plc

Mill, John Stewart. (1873) Autobiography Reprint: 1960.

Columbia: Columbia University Press

Mill, John Stewart. (2002) A System of Logic Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific

Riley, J. (1998) Mill on Liberty, [electronic resource], Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, URL: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/coventry/Doc?id=5003276&ppg=21

Introduction

The justification of decisions has always been a conflict between the ends and the means. Humans struggle with this concept because morality affects our actions. The sense of right and wrong is ever present and is the basis for what ethics are. Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are two different types of decision based ethical systems that are compared and contrasted throughout this article.

The Idea in a Nutshell

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory stating that the right decision is one that maximizes the overall good of society. The founder of this theory being unknown, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are considered to be the most influential contributors. Bentham described this principle as “the greatest happiness”. On the other side of the ring lies the principle of Kantian ethics. Kantianism is the theory of the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Kantianism is a rational process based upon right and wrong and how we perceive things as being morally appropriate.

The 10 Things You Need to Know About Utilitarian and Kantian Ethics

1.    Utilitarian decisions are based on results. Whatever choice produces the greatest happiness or utility is the best choice. If the greatest possible utility is not achieved, then it is morally wrong. Greatest overall happiness should be sought from the decision for anyone directly or indirectly affected.

Image via Wikipedia

2.    Kantian decisions are based on motives. Decisions are moral based on a person’s will or intent of acting. Actions are not based on the consequences but rather on the person’s will during the acting. Rationality is the ultimate good and all people are fundamentally rational beings.

Image via Wikipedia

3.    Utilitarians look at the bigger picture. The idea encompasses the philosophy of the greatest good for the greatest amount. Motives must be disregarded. The action must be disassociated from the actor. Presidents often need to be defined as utilitarian. It is necessary to engage in actions where the positive outcomes outweigh the negative consequences for society as a whole.

4.    Kantians focus on small details as well as the big picture. This is an individualistic approach that ensures that moral obligations are fulfilled no matter the consequences. Minorities and individuals cannot be overlooked. The formulation rule of Kantianism states, “Act so that you always treat others as an end and never as a means to an end only.”

5.    Utilitarianism produces happiness. An act is only morally permissible if the consequences of that action produce maximum utility and happiness for all involved. The basic building block of this principle is the idea of creating the greatest good for the greatest amount. Many favor the utilitarian approach because it offers more favorable outcomes than a Kantian approach.

6.    Kantianism brings forth the greater good. Actions under this principle are performed for the sake of duty. Duty is the necessity of acting out of reverence for universal law. Only actions performed in accordance with duty have moral worth. The greater a person’s disinclination to act in accordance with duty, the greater the action’s moral worth. Morality in this sense is a struggle against one’s emotional inclinations.

7.    Utilitarianism is subjective and individual. There is no universal set of rules to base morality, therefore each situation must be judged individually. Weighing consequences to maximize utility can be lengthy and time-consuming.

8.    Kantianism is more universal. Kantian ethics rely on a maxim which is a universal principle that can be applied consistently to everyone in similar situations. The maxim underlies actions and judges these to be good or bad solely on how they conform to reason. To avoid skepticism, Kantian ethics must have no exceptions and be applicable to all human beings.

9.    Utilitarian ethics view consequences as everything. The good and bad consequences must be heavily weighed before a decision can be made. The total good consequences must outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, the action is morally proper. Since there is no given rule to follow, the consequence is the sole basis for the utilitarian philosophy of ethics.

10.    Kantian ethics view consequences as nothing. If the consequences of an action are not the best, one is still required to fulfill that obligation because it’s their duty. The consequences of an act do not contribute to the moral worth of the act. Kant reasoned that the physical world is outside humans’ full control and thus humans can’t be held accountable for events that occur in it.

The Video Lounge

3:55-6:00 [clip extract]

This clip is from a BBC documentary about a kidnapping and murder that occurred in 2002. The second half of the clip discusses whether Kantian or Utilitarian ethics would have been more effective to use on the kidnapper to obtain information from him. The information looking to be obtained was all hypothetical but the general concept is still very informative.

My Take

The debate between these two very important views of ethics will always be present in the corporate world as well as society in general. I personally believe the Utilitarian approach to ethics is more practical but can never be used as a universal medium on which others can base their decisions upon. I think it is up to managers and employees to pick the approach that can more successfully answer the questions and solve the problems that are faced in the business world of today.

References

1. Allison, H. E. (2004). Kant’s transcendental idealism (Rev. and enl. ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
2. Banham, G. (2003). Kant’s practical philosophy: from critique to doctrine. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
3. Kant: Morality. (n.d.). Philosophy pages. Retrieved September 11, 2011, from http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm
4. KANTIAN ETHICS. (n.d.). Sacramento state. Retrieved September 11, 2011, from http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm
5. Sandel, M. (n.d.). The Ethics of Torture: Kantian v. Utilitarian Reasoning. YouTube. Retrieved September 11, 2011, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0×1h5JbhNwk

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Contact Information

To contact the author of “Top 10 Management on Utilitarian and Kantian Ethics,” please email John Edmund Sencial III at esencial3@gmail.com.

About the Publisher

David C. Wyld (dwyld.kwu@gmail.com) is the Robert Maurin Professor of Management at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana. He is a management consultant, researcher/writer, and executive educator. His blog, Wyld About Management, can be viewed at http://wyldaboutmanagement.blogspot.com/. He also serves as the Director of the Reverse Auction Research Center (http://reverseauctionresearch.com/), a hub of research and news in the expanding world of competitive bidding. Dr. Wyld also maintains compilations of his student’s publications regarding:

• management concepts (http://toptenmanagement.blogspot.com/)
• book reviews (http://wyld-about-books.blogspot.com/) and
• international foods (http://wyld-about-food.blogspot.com/).    

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The theory of Utilitarianism can be simply summed up by “the greatest good for the greatest number”. It is choosing the action which will lead to the greatest amount of total happiness – and this is the morally correct action. Since first being devised by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1932) it has become increasingly popular and is one of the most widely used ethical positions. Christian morality on the other hand is a term which can be used on many different levels. There are many denominations of Christianity, meaning that their views on some particular subjects will differ– however they all essentially believe in several traditional common beliefs which could be regarded as Christian Morality. I will be looking at whether Utilitarianism is compatible with these beliefs or not.

One of the most common beliefs is that of the Ten Commandments. Ten Rules which if followed will allow everybody to live a good and honest life in the eyes of God, also allowing them to pursue the path to heaven. For example “You shall not murder.” Under Christian rule this commandment would never be broken as it is an act against God (a sin). Looking at this from a Utilitarian perspective you would also not kill, as it would be against the interests of the majority – causing emotional pain to those who knew the person. So here we can see that Utilitarianism is compatible in certain situations. Christian Morality bases itself around generally being a “good person” – giving to charity, helping others when they are in need, and upholding your principles from the Bible. For example you are walking down the street and you get asked to make a donation to charity, according to Christian morality making this donation (however small) is the good thing to do. If in this situation we are to use Utilitarianism we would also most likely make the donation, as it is for “greater good”, in other words the £1 you donate will give more benefit to others than what it would for yourself. However this raises the question of what exactly is the ‘greater good’? Bentham said that whenever anyone has to decide on the right or wrong course of action they ask themselves, “What is the most useful thing to do in this situation?” What they are actually doing is deciding which decision will lead them to the greatest pleasure; he called this the principle of Utility. He goes on to say “By the principle of Utility is meant that property of any object , whereby it tends to produce benefit , advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party concerned”. In this case the person may see the greater good of being the fact that the £1 will help somebody less fortunate than themselves, or they may see themselves keeping the £1 to be for the greater good.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) made slight revisions to Bentham’s theory. He disliked Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus, which focused very much on quantifying pleasure; he believed the quality of pleasure was a vital factor that had to be taken into account also. Mill states “To do as one would be done by, and to love one’s neighbour as oneself constitutes the perfection of utilitarian morality.” “Utilitarianism captures the very essence of the Golden Rule.” This may be true for some cases, but again it depends upon what the “greatest good” is. Here is another possible situation. For example a rich businessman is on his way to a meeting which could potentially mean his company gaining a lot of money, but on his way to this meeting he encounters an elderly woman who is seriously injured on the ground. The Christian way of dealing with this situation would be to help the old lady straight away (The Golden Rule). However for the Utilitarian it is harder to judge what he may do. Following the ethic of “the greatest good for the greatest number”, he may ignore the old lady and head straight for his meeting. Not doing so would mean that all the shareholders at the meeting would suffer as a result, in his eyes the company would suffer more than the old lady. However this all depends on what you see as being “the greatest good”. Who would be receiving the greatest pain in this situation is subjective, the old ladies pain or the pain of those at the meeting? I do realise that in reality most people would stop to help the lady simply because of their instinct, however it still displays a point. The problem with Utilitarianism is that as everybody has a different view on what is good and bad there will therefore always be instances when anything can be justified. Any ethic that allows for ‘subjective’ or ‘different views’ will allow that person to justify just about anything they want. Whereas with absolutist theories this cannot be done.  

The beliefs of Christian Morality are all firmly absolutist beliefs. Utilitarianism can allow for almost anything to be justified, whereas many Christian beliefs will not. John Stuart Mill even claimed that Utilitarianism could be used in order to justify slavery. We know that slavery is not a good thing, as it causes suffering – Mill says “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, so impeded our attempts to get it.” Although we know slavery is not morally correct, it does allow us to have pleasure through the hedonic calculus, as having work done for free means that we can enjoy an easier life. 

INTRODUCTION

A subject area somewhat neglected online is philosophy. That statement may surprise you. 

For many who haven’t studied the subject, philosophy is easily confused with religion. It isn’t. Philosophy can involve much reflection on religious issues, and philosophers have been both highly religious, as with St. Anselm, Augustine, Bishop Berkeley, Descartes, etc, and atheistic, as with David Hume, Nietzsche or Sartre.

ORIGINS OF PHILOSOPHY AMONG THE PRE-SOCRATATICS

Philosophy is about ordered thinking and systematic reasoning – it is the art of arguing a case to make it watertight and complete. The history of philosophy began with a single question posed by a man called Thales (585 BCE) who asked What the entire Universe consists of.

Answers posed by Thales and his contemporaries, the first of the Pre-Socratics, centred on the four elements, Earth, Air, Fire & Water. Some felt water was the predominant element, after all, earth was just watery mud, compacted, ice was solid water, all life depended on water supplies, blood was red water, etc. Others argued similar cases for the other elements, and eventually the case came down to atomicists, trying to define the basic building blocks on which all in existence depends.

Where religion was speculative, and often fired by imagination, philosophy had to be consistent, orderly and as free from contradiction and internal flaw as possible. The arguments moved from just contemplating the nature of what everything was made of to debates on the best political systems for a nation, the rights of individuals, the nature of art (aesthetics), and much more besides.

The Pre-Socratics became very orderly rationalists indeed, and highly disciplined. Mathematics became a central element of philosophical reasoning – many philosophers saw maths as the most perfect reasoning instrument. Its laws were very difficult to dispute. Pythagoras (c570-430 BCE) developed highly sophisticated mathematical systems of thought, which are still essential in geometry, trigonometry, physics, and all sciences to this day. Another famous Pre-Socratic was Xenophanes, a contemporary of Pythagoras, who argued that there is no reason why we should assume that God Made man in God’s image for if a cow could draw it might depict God as a cow. A horse would worship equine gods, etc.

THE GIANTS – PLATO, SOCRATES AND ARISTOTLE

With Socrates, (c. 469-399 BCE) Plato (c. 428-348 BCE), and Aristotle, the history of philosophy really gets going. The history of philosophy has often been defined as a series of footnotes to Plato.

Socrates never wrote anything down. We mainly know of him through Plato, Aristotle and Aristophanes (the latter was more of a dramatist than a philosopher). Socrates was an intense and brooding thinker, who would often get entranced by his own thinking and become totally immovable. Even during a battle (he had been a soldier in his youth). He was seen in mid-battlefield, completely lost in some chain of thought.

In Plato’s books, Socrates rarely presents his own arguments. He usually listens closely while some other philosopher gives his views on art, politics, or the nature of Justice, etc. Socrates then takes that argument apart, line-by-line, until the case presented to him crumbles into an illogical heap. This method was known as Dialectics. It is a form of argument that needs people to actually listen to one another. Nowadays, in arguments and especially on TV debates, we see people get highly emotive and simply interrupt one another so the argument is never finished.

Socrates would therefore find someone with a strong sense of justice or religious faith, and ask him or her what he or she understands justice or faith to mean. The arguer presents a case. Socrates then shows the reasoning to be flawed and effectively shows the student that they don’t understand the concepts at all.

Only in later dialogues, written after the death of Socrates, does Plato have Socrates presenting views of his own, which were almost certainly Plato’s views.

Plato’s metaphysics sees the Universe as a crude copy of a more perfect formal one – before the carpenter makes a chair, he sees the chair in his head – much is the same with the Gods. Our Universe, thanks to our deviating from course, is not the perfect match with the divine form universe created and envisaged, but it is our duty to make it as close to the form as possible.

A crucial key moment in the history of philosophy was the trial and execution of Socrates. Arrested with corrupting the young, who meant giving them the ability to question, doubt and argue against the authorities teachings of their masters, and bosses and parents, Socrates was obliged to die by hemlock poisoning. Philosophers since regarded him as a martyr to freedom of thought, expression, speech and dissent.

Aristotle (c. 384-322 BCE was a student of Plato’s, and the teacher of Alexander The Great. Despite many books available being attributed to him, he wrote nothing down and the books are the notes written by his students during his academy teaching classes. He differed from Plato in working up from what we have, rather than down from idealized forms. To Aristotle, the carpenter’s chair is an improvement on chairs he’s already seen and made. We progress from where we are. His approach was more scientific than Plato’s. Much of his work lists things as they are in all their variations. He is regarded as the first true zoologist for his derailed classification of animal species.

His cosmology set the Earth at the centre of the universe seeing all moving in circles round us – This became a major Christian doctrine until the age of Galileo, and even he was suppressed for presenting telescopic evidence of its denial.

HUMANISTS AND DIVINES

Early Christian scholars argued predominantly about the existence of God. In the Renaissance, a revival of interest in classical traditions arose from discoveries at Pompeii and other excavations in the Hellenic World. The universities divided into two overlapping schools, the Divinities and the Humanities. The latter school saw human nature as all-important, setting all else round man. The Divines set God as central to their disciplines.

Post-Reformation philosophers focussed on the divides in religious opinion, and began to argue for a more secular political State. Science became more empirical, that is to say, experiment and testing became more important than simply rationalizing a point of argument.

With so many arguing theologically about issues of transubstantiation, resurrection, the virgin birth, the nature of angels & archangels, etc, many were going so far as to reason that maybe God didn’t exist at all. The Aristotelian cosmology was proved false, the Churches were in schism. Kings reigning by divine right found their status challenged by republicanisms, and the age of reason spilled into the age of revolution & bloodshed. Philosophers changed the World.

UTILITARIANS, ATHEISTS AND SOCIALISTS

In the 19th century, more major changes arose. Two British Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill recognized that morality isn’t religiously motivated, i.e., that we don’t good because God says so. We do well because it moves us away from pain towards happiness. To the Utiltarians, the god is simply that “which brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number.” This simple statement was open to criticism, and had major effect son religion and politics. It drew a question mark over the value of democracy in that a majority of happy people can benefit from the unhappiness of a minority. An election win with 51% of the vote leaves 49% of the electorate unhappy. Ten people could benefit from nine slaves, etc.

In religion, Utilitarianism was a non-religion based morality system. Making people happy was not rooted in divine commandments. Religionists had long argued that God is necessary to make us good, but Utiltarians torpedoed that notion in a trice.

Much philosophy was being taken over by other disciplines now, science and medicine were disciplines in their own right. Philosophy of the mind gave rise to psychology and psychiatry. The main areas philosophy still held mastery was in metaphysics and ethics.

Hegel’s theory that the world is shaped by the conflict and tensions between opposing forces was to have a devastating impact on thinking. Life is a struggle to overcome the mess made by everyone who went before us. Each philosopher starts by finding flaws in his predecessors, artist’s study the techniques of other artists and build on them. It was a student called Karl Marx who applied this thinking to the nature of industrial working relationships – the struggle to overcome the opposing forces being the class structure of society – politics became a conflict between Socialism / Communism and Capitalism.

With Darwin’s empirical findings on evolution, the final nail was laid into religion for many and the explosion of secular atheistic philosophers was a dominant force of 19th and 20th century thought. Nietzsche simply declared, “God is Dead.” Sartre and the existentialists examined with some pessimism what humans making all their own choices come down to. Without God or a devil, Sartre concluded, “Hell is other People.” (Huis Clos).

Logical Positivists like A J Ayer simply dismissed religion as a non-argument. Anything metaphysical, by its nature, or lack of it cannot be observed or experimented on or tested, so forget it. Deconstructionalists began to unravel language itself. Much of what we know, believe and take for granted is being unravelled in front of us. There could be no meaning underlying all.

Quite where philosophy can go from here is unknown, but it is not and never was to be confused with religion, There are obviously gaps in this introductory study, philosophers not mentioned, disciplines not defined or explained. Other essays here on my web site cover some of that ground, and for individual philosopher biographies, and works, just go to Wikipedia.

Arthur Chappell.

            You harvest the goodness of virtues into your work and working conditions surrounding you. You push yourself over the edge, so that you are useful to your master or boss. The characteristic of “usefulness” is determined by your freewill to do so, making yourself visible to the external (outside) condition. You never put your own internal condition above the external. Your exterior propels outwards; it never goes inward or passive. You choose to heighten yourself above others and earn their respect, because you work or labor hard. Your expectation from others is increased. The apparatus of society skyrockets exponentially and it is mechanized no one other than you and yourself.

            As you reach the maximum goal of output, input also increases to make demands meet.  You have become an object of a priori example. You look to export the traits of your own personality, and import at least some experiences from a resultant action. As knowledge and experiences increase, you look forward to next like a slave looking for work. The happiness heightens knowing that you prove the products and results to others. The only way to sink and drown in the happiness is during war-time, in which an intense experience is increased. Your a posterori decreases, until you crash at the bottom of class heritage. Socialism arose from the dust of a posterori, eventually pushing the pave way of a priori in organization of politics- even if the reductionist method is being used to decrease and deprive people (or citizens) of their livelihood and lives for the reason of their lack of usefulness. In socialism the resources are maximized out.

            It is during the revolutionary socialist transition that you find yourself useful for the good of privatization/public. It is the extreme utilitarianism at its peak. The ownership of production and distribution of products befell to the community, in which it gathers the individual human resource to push out its philosophical theory of systemization of collective mind as individual. Suddenly, you are no longer of importance to the community; instead, you control your own service like everyone else. The socialist machine has stabilized the equality between working class and elite working class, which create an imperfect system of utilitarianism, because you work for the same amount salary as others who do not work as much. This can also be contradictory: the others, who do not work as much, may be happier than those who work hard. It is this lack of transition that blockaded the ranks of service in utilitarianism. There is no individual, only “collective individual”, in a socialist system. You have become one with the whole pie of individual as a group.

            The happiness is, in theory, stable and equal for everyone in a socialist system. The higher the happiness, the better society turns out to be. The lower the happiness, the higher chance of flawed system is turned out to be. Individual consciousness of economy is not quite the same. You try and fight for more happiness and earn higher standard of living than others, yet it never came because of unproductive cycle that socialism offers. In capitalist view, however, you deserve the rewards of increased working hours, much unlike Marxist/socialist system. Finally, you do have some private ownership in capitalism, rather than handing over your ownership to the community in which you work hard for. It is in this opportunity that utilitarianism that brings you the happiness: free-market capitalist utilitarianism. In socialist model, you simply have no opportunity to exploit, as community controls everything. Utilitarianism is everything.

2011 © Jiri H. Stefanovich

Firstly, through research, Bentham concluded that people would naturally seek to avoid pain, thus he argued that good is that which equals the greatest pleasure and the least amount of pain for the greatest number of beings. Therefore, a right moral decision would be one that produced the greatest pleasure for a great number of people, and this is what makes Bentham’s theory Act Utilitarianism.

Interestingly, the idea that good is defined in the terms of pleasure makes utilitarianism of hedonistic theory too. Bentham proposed that we should tally the pleasure and pain which results from our action to determine of the action is morally right. According to Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only consequences in determining whether our conduct is moral.

Moreover, Bentham created the hedonic calculus to measure pain and pleasure sand this hedonic calculus was based on ancient hedonism. For Bentham, the most moral acts are those that maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Also, he believed that the hedonic calculus helped us choose the right or wrong thing to do as it calculated how pleasurable the consequence of the action was by measuring its length, intensity, certainty, remoteness, secureness , the chance of success, and most importantly, its extent. The hedonic calculus gave Bentham a method of testing whether an action was good or not, and he believed that whatever is good or bad can be measured in a quantitive way.

In short, Bentham’s version of utilitarianism may be used to decide on the right course of action by seeing if the action provides pleasure and happiness for the greatest number of people, not just the individual doing the action. He also uses the hedonic calculus to aid in one’s decision of making the right choice and doing the right action.

John Stuart Mill

-(1861)
Normative ethics: theories that we ought to do morally. Moral issue analogy:
-Train tracks with a baby on one track and there is a town with many people. The utilitarian would kill the baby.
Utilitarianism: moral right means and morally wrong means. It has axims which means you don’t have to prove it. If we fulfill our function then we have Unitarianism. The greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people.
Problem: it leads to a paralyses
-Happiness means pleasure in the absence of pain. Unhappiness is private pleasure. Pleasure and the freedom from pain are desirable. Subjectively pain is bad. Many things can be desirable. Things that are good require some pain. For example, going to the dentist. Some people give up pleasure like monks and it doesn’t refute utilitarianism. They are pressuring pain of a means to an end.
-There are different kinds of pleasure. There different kinds of pleasures. If you compare two pleasures how can you tells what’s higher? An experienced consensus. This is a physical pleasure. There are atheistic pleasures that come from music, a painting, etc. There is also more pleasure that we get from doing the right thing.

-No normal human being will choose the life of a fully satisfied animal. No human being would choose that life. Its better to be a human dissatisfied then a pig satisfied. A being of higher intelligence requires more to make them happy. We are more capable of suffering then a dog because we can think deep into the future and the past. We are venerable more to emotional pain. We might wish to be an animal for a day.
Moral agent and a moral object.
-If an entity is a moral agent then you are a moral object.
Sentience: a being capable of experiencing pleasure and pain. Tress and plants are not sentience beings. Animals are sentience beings because they can experience pain.
Moral agent: Moral universe: it someone not worthy of prise and blame.
-Higher pleasures are a moral pleasure. Pleasure of higher intelligence will choose a lower pleasure over a higher pleasure. For example, getting drunk at the bar. This happens because of addiction, peer pleasure, time, and age is a factor. When you get older you might not enjoy intellectual pleasures.
The formal of utilitarianism calculus. (This is a formula).
-It is not about my own personal pleasure. It is not about maximizing individual pleasure over pain. It is about taking action and asking yourself who does if effect in terms of pleasure and pain. Does it produce happiness over unhappiness? For example, poring nuclear waste into the river. Is rape wrong? There is some pleasure produced, but the victim and the community have fear. It has more pain the pleasure. That is how utilitarianism would respond. This is a common sense calculus and not mathematical formula. An action is morally right or wrong if it passes Utilitarianism calculus. A bad person will act out of a motive to produce unhappiness. This is an idea that is something to look up to. The richer you are gives you a moral obligation to increase happiness in society.
-What proof is it acceptable? You can’t prove pleasure is good or bad they are axims. We have to look into ourselves. We are built to strive for happiness.
General happiness: Each person desires their own happiness. (He is committing the fallacy of composition if he uses the parts of a whole).
-Abortion focuses on Unitarians considerations.
Problems
1) Humans are built to peruse power and not happiness this is from Nietzsche.
2) Unitarians might promote violence. For example, killing someone and giving money to the poor.
3) Environmentalism. Three species of plants on that island. The plants and trees don’t matter, the goats on the island matter.