The reading dealt with the topic of ethics and consisted of pages from three different writers—Immanuel Kant, J. J. C. Smart, and Aristotle.
Each writer tended to expose a different ethical framework. Kant took a deontological approach, that is, an action is ones moral duty. Smart took a consequentialist approach, specifically in the form of utilitarianism where one should act to bring about the greatest good. Then lastly, Aristotle emphasised a virtuous framework where one should endeavour to obtain the mean of a virtue in any given situation.
While each of the three approaches provided a framework to base ethics upon, I was left feeling empty because none seemed to touch on why one ought to follow any of their ethical frameworks.
Peoples opinions may vary as to the morality or immorality of a particular issue, however I believe we all tend to recognise in our heart what are good values or is virtuous. Within Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics, the reason why obtaining the mean would make sense to anyone is because we all recognise the virtuousness. To make use of an example provided, we all realise generosity as something good—it is good to give. Therefore we are able to see that the excess and deficiency, respectively wastefulness and stinginess, are bad qualities.
On the other hand, the utilitarian approach which Smart espoused, attempts to consider what is the greater good. Any concept of the “greater good” can only be figured out only because we already have an idea of what “good” is. To comment on the island example, it is good to keep promises, and it is good to give and save the lives of others. What is posed in the example is a moral dilemma—where two moral values or virtues clash. Choosing to give and save peoples lives would not mean one held promises in disregard or vice-versa. It only goes to shows that as often happens within life, one can run into a situation where good values conflict.
Turning to Kant’s more complicated ethics, it appears that immorality occurs when one does not follow the categorical imperative, that is, when the maxim an action implies cannot be universally applied.
An example Kant provided was of a man who desperately needs money. To get money, he has to firmly promise to repay it back within a certain time. The problem is he knows he won’t be able to repay it. So assuming he does promise to repay the money when he won’t be able to, the maxim of his action would be: “When I believe myself to be in need of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know I shall never do so.”
Kant comments that if we made this maxim into a universal law of nature, that it would be inconsistent with itself. The reasoning given is that the universality of a law which says anyone in need could promise what he pleased without any intention of fulfilment, would mean no one would believe what was promised to him.
While I can see the logic, I found Kant’s argument to be quite weak. As I can picture a world within which everyone always broke their promises, being just as reliable as a world where everyone kept their promises. Simply because the language is different with promises being based on a negative, it does not change the act of promising. Promises would still exist and one could still expect them to be carried through.
To summarise, I tend to side with Aristotle’s virtuous set of ethics, while also seeing the positive value of a utilitarian approach. I can also see some sense in Kant’s duty bound ethics, which because they have nothing to do with the particulars of a situation, they might be better to help carry out decisions within situations that are emotionally charged.
© 2004 Scott Brisbane