Utilitarianism is based on two fundamental assumptions; that human beings are governed by the drives of pleasure and pain. Bentham argued that, “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure (Bentham, 221-222).” This entails that human happiness (pleasure) is the ultimate moral good. Secondly, it asserts that actions should be judged in the light of their consequences. Bentham asserts that man may pretend to abjure their empire, but in reality he will remain subject to his sovereign masters, the utilitarian principle recognizes this subjection and assumes it as the foundation of the system (Bentham, 225-226). Therefore, it follows that an action is evaluated in terms of its consequences in maximizing happiness or minimizing unhappiness.
John Stuart Mill, concisely, sums up the principle of utility when he agues that the creed that accepts as foundation of morals, the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill, 11). In addition, Mill differentiates between superior or inferior pleasures in making a case for humans as capable of higher pleasures while other sentient beings are subject to lower pleasures of eating and sexual activities. In other words, the distinction implies that human being’s conception of happiness is higher than that of animal appetites. “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied (Mill, 12)”, thus Mill assumes a hierarchy of activities with different degrees of pleasurability and it is to be measured on the properties of durability and intellectual stimulation. This becomes problematic as it fails to prove, categorically, how poetry or playing piano is any better than carpentry or archery. Mill takes it for granted as he does for the proof of happiness as a given end of human beings. He argues that, “Questions of ultimate ends are not amenable to direct proof. Whatever can be proved to be good must be so by being shown to be a means to something admitted to be good without proof (Mill, 6)”. This overlooks other human ends such as “glory” when people commit to such precepts not as means to an end but ends in themselves, for personal recognition and legacy as opposed to the collective good or general happiness.
Utilitarianism may be compatible with the fundamental precept of democracy as rule of majority; but it certainly is incompatible with rights of the individual. In making a case for this, lets examine the famous trolley car problem, i.e. making a moral decision to kill one person by steering the track or let the five people be killed when you know that you are their only yet unknown existential decision-maker. It is quite obvious what a utilitarian would do in making this decision; he would certainly kill the innocent person to save five. Because, according to utilitarian principle, by killing one instead of five reduces the amount of total pain in the world. However, does this justify such an action where an individual is at the disposal for the common good? Isn’t it the same kind of argument Hitler made to wipe out Jews? To examine another hypothetical situation, is it right to torture the son whose father happen to have installed a major bomb blast and was caught few hours before it was set to explode. Since he wouldn’t utter a word, would it be right to torture his wife and daughter right before his eyes to extract the information. Though these two examples are quite different, I would argue that both analogies works under a utilitarian moral framework in a similar fashion when the decision is taken to kill the innocent person at the other end of track or torture the wife and daughter of the terrorist. As a result, utilitarianism fails to take into account of the fact it doesn’t respect individual rights. In a utilitarian moral decision, individual rights or minority rights are expandable. Individual rights and even lives of minorities can become an object of sacrificial act for the common good.
Another major setback to utilitarianism is that it assumes it can equate numerical values with persons or their values. Its so-called felicific calculus assumes that it can translate all values to a single uniform measure, which is not possible to aggregate all values to monetary figures. How much is the immediate and long-term pain for blinding a person who has already lost his other eye? How much would the life of a college-educated person of twenty-three years cost? Or variables such as college education and being young are of any difference at all if it regards all individuals as each units of a numerical value? But obviously, their production of gross-world-happiness varies and depends on such factors. I would argue that putting price tag on human life is not just morally untenable but practically infeasible.
In protest to utilitarianism, Kant argues that there are categorical moral imperatives independent of the consequences of the actions. He agues that nothing can possibly be conceived in the world that can be called good except a good will (Kant, Metaphysics of Morals p. 15). A good will is good not because of its ends but simply by the virtue of the volition. Kantianism posits that the basis of one’s moral choice is that one should act according to a maxim that can become a universal law and thus positions oneself as an agent of universal legislation. Secondly, it argues that one should act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another as ends in themselves. Because, all rational beings come under the law that each of them must treat itself and all others never merely as means but ends in themselves, i.e. a kingdom of ends (Kant, Metaphysics of Morals, p. 53). However, Kant presupposes the possibility of a priori knowledge that entails the necessity to investigate a priori the possibility of a categorical imperative, for instance; Kant argues that lying is wrong in itself, no matter the consequences or the intentionality of the act. Because provided it is a maxim, it doesn’t only violate to the law of universalizability or its reversibility for that matter, but simply for pure practical reason it is impossible for a society to function without certain categorical imperatives (Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, p.883). A rational being cannot uphold a maxim of false promise for he is cognizant of the simple fact that a society built on trust cannot function when the institution of promise falls down (Kant, Metaphysics of Morals, p. 40). This seems a highly plausible argument, especially from a functionalist point of view, and it provides a sound objective moral basis without undermining the rights of individuals from the tyranny of utilitarian common good. There are problems with Kantian ethics that I am aware of, for instance, its huge emphasis on reason and rationality presupposes a radically rational conception of human beings which is troubling, especially, from a Humean perspective. However, I would still argue that if there is anyone in history to be awarded the title: father of human rights, Kant seems to be the most fitting candidate for the recognition given his lucid and cogent arguments for individual rights and human dignity.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel (2004) The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics. Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.
Kant, Immanuel (2004) The Critique of Practical Reason (Kindle Location 883). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.
Bentham, Jeremy (2010) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation White Dog Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Mill, John Stuart (2004) Utilitarianism. Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.
Rauhut, Nils Ch. 2011. Ultimate Questions – Thinking About Philosophy, Pearson Education, Inc., NJ.
Source:
http://www.merabsarpa.com/philosophy/kant-the-father-of-human-rights