Bentham and Kant

• 10 marker - Jeremy Bentham's act utilitarianism

  - People are motivated by the desire to achieve happiness, which he understood as pleasure, and avoid pain

  - Everyone has an equal right to happiness, irrespective of status

  -happiness/pleasure is the sole intrinsic good; everything else is at best instrumentally good

  - in making moral decisions, each situations needs to be considered in its own right. experience and generally accepted principles have secondary importance. rules aren't to be obeyed as a matter of course, only is they serve to increase human happiness
• 10 marker - Jeremy Bentham's act utilitarianism cont.

  - his approach to happiness was in terms of quantity. he didn't distinguish between different types of happiness or attribute different values to them
• 10 marker - Jeremy Bentham: hedonic calculus

  - he thought pleasure and pain are measurable

  - each person is affected by the action was to have equal consideration

  - individuals were to think of the general happiness and not just their own, though by seeking the former they were likely to ensure their own too

  - there are 7 criteria: intensity, certainty, duration, purity, propinquity, fecundity and extent
• 15 marker - challenges to Bentham's utilitarianism and responses

  - too much emphasis on consequences which we cannot be certain of (C). In most cases we can be reasonably sure(R).

  - motive, rules and duties are seen as being of no importance (C). motives are the same as the intended consequences, so are considered. rules and duties do have a place, but only if they serve the greatest happiness principle (R)

  - there's potential for injustice as the interests of minorities may be supressed or ignored (C). it would be unjust to favour minority rights over those of the majority (R)
• 10 marker - Kant's Categorical Imperative

  - his theory is deontological in nature. it's an ethic of motive and duty. its rules are absolute and exceptionless

  - Kant believed that everyone has an inbuilt sense of moral duty. it's not God-imposed, so it's a secular ethic

  - we should do what is right because that is part of what it means to be a rational human being

  - our capacity for rational thought is an innate intellectual power that human possess more or less equally and that distinguishes humans from animals
• 10 marker - Kant's Categorical Imperative cont.

  - Kant's name for that principle was categorical imperative, which related to self-interest and consequences

  - the categorical imperative is an absolute demand

  - there are some formulations of Kant's categorical imperative and these serve as criteria for the rightness/wrongness of an action. never treat people merely as a means to an end, but always as ends in themselves. act as if you were making laws for a kingdom that treated people as ends in themselves
• 10 marker - Kant's Categorical Imperative cont.

  - the theory of the categorical imperative links to Kant's concept of the summum bonum (the highest good)

  - obedience to the categorical imperative is the means of being worthy of it. if the good tells us that we ought to do our duty, then that's possible 'ought' means 'can'

  - belief in the summon bonum and the categorical imperative entails making these assumptions about the world that Kant referred to as the postulates: God, immortality and freedom:
• 15 marker - strengths and challenges of Kant's categorical imperative

  -doing a bad act to bring about good consequences can never be justified (like in Bentham's theory) (S). but surely if the consequences are good, e.g. saving the lives of thousands, then the act, e.g. killing one person to achieve it, is good (C).

  - the primary of reason rather than emotion promotes objective fairness (S). this is unrealistic, as emotions are an integral part of what it is to be human (C)
• 15 marker - strengths and challenges of Kant's categorical imperative cont.

  - the summum bonum argument makes sense to those who are religious, and in any cases, it is not essential to Kant's key ethical arguments. setting it to one side does not invalidate his theory of categorical imperative (S). this argument not only makes no sense to non-religious people, it's also full of questionable assumptions. it weakens the theory as a whole (C).
• Bentham's views that are compatible with Christian decision making

  - Bentham's attempts at social reform were strongly motivated by compassion and concern for others. his ethics stress the equality of all. Jesus said he had come to help those in need and that people would be judged on the basis of their responses to those who needed help. In his letter to Colossian Christians, Paul urged them to treat people with compassion and kindness

  - Bentham was concerned with what would result in the greatest good. Jesus sometimes acted situationally, putting accepted rules to one side in order to help others

  - self-interest is inevitable as it is an integral part of human nature. Jesus said, 'love your neighbour as you love yourself', so he recognised that self-love is important
• where Bentham's views are not compatible with Christian decision-making


  - Bentham had no time for religion: happiness was an earthly happiness. Belief in God is central: happiness is not just to be looked for in this life but is about eternal joy in God's presence

  - Bentham rejected any idea or special rights: everyone's happiness counted equally. The Bible teaches the importance of paying special attention to the vulnerable

  - consequences alone matter, not rules, motive or the act itself. Jesus taught that if people gave to the poor just to impress others, then this had no moral value
• where Bentham's views are not compatible with Christian decision-making cont.

  - happiness is the sense of experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain is the sole intrinsic good. Jesus taught that the most important rules are love of God and of neighbour. Happiness is about human flourishing and is a by-product of a loving action rather than the goal

  - rules are of secondary importance and if they get in the way of the Greatest Happiness Principle, should be set aside. Many Christians ethical theories follow a rule-based morality. they provide useful guidance in doing what's right
• where Kant's views are compatible with Christian decision-making

  - the rational basis of Kant's ethics has links to Aquinas' thinking

  - the first formulation of the categorical imperative is universalizability. Jesus' golden rules: do unto others as you would have them do unto you

  - Kant thought that reality was beyond the world of space and time. God was an essential postulate of summum bonum theory, which was the union of virtue with happiness
• where Kant's views aren't compatible with Christian decision making

  - it's a secular theory in line with 18th century thought. our sense of moral obligation comes from our nature as rational beings and has nothing to do with God. belief in God is central to natural to natural moral law and Divine Command Theory

  - it is a rule-based theory in which rules apply universally and without exception. the situation doesn't effect them. Jesus on occasion set aside the rules to allow for people's needs

  - it's a very cold theory, about duty, not love. Jesus' teaching is focused on love of God and others