Two Basic Philosophical Moral Frameworks

© 2006 by Ron Yezzi

Week 5

Assigned Scenario for This Week: Scenario 7

    The two moral frameworks this week, The Principle of Utility and Human Dignity and Infinite Worth, exemplify two basic, contrasting points of view of philosophers. The Principle of Utility expresses the views of the nineteenth century British philosophers Jeremy Benthan and John Stuart Mill; Human Dignity and Infinite Worth expresses the views of the eighteenth century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The individual activities for Week 5 will require a more detailed account of the positions of these philosophers than appears under the frameworks here.
    After the presentation of the three moral frameworks, you will be directed to Desire2Learn (D2L) to submit reports according to your assignments within the group. (Your assignment can be found under the Table of Weekly Assignments for Working with Moral Frameworks, page 5, under the Instructions for Working with Moral Frameworks.) Remember that you can break your assignment down into separate messages, as long as you are meeting deadlines.

The Principle of Utility

    The Principle Stated: In order to act in a morally acceptable way, you ought to produce the greatest amount of good (or pleasure) and the least amount of pain for the greatest number of people involved in an action.

    Assumptions:

• As a basic fact about human nature, we can assert that human beings always act so as to gain pleasure and to avoid pain.
• Through experience, it is possible to weigh the various ways in which people get pleasure or pain from actions so that we can determine which actions are more likely to produce the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain.
• Human beings are capable of acting for the benefit of everyone involved in action rather than just for their own selfish interests.

    Explanation: Advocates of the Principle of Utility (Utilitarians) propose that we decide how to act by engaging in a cost-benefit analysis to determine the effects of an action on all the people involved, in terms of pleasure and pain. We should act in such a way that we maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the greatest number of people. Note that everyone involved has an equal right to have one's interests considered in the analysis. So we cannot give special preferences to our selfish interests, our own family, our friends, or our local interest groups.
    The weighing of pleasures and pains can be a fairly complicated process--not a simple, quick, or crude one. For example, we may consider (a) long-range pleasures and pains rather than immediate ones, (b) differing intensities of pleasure and pain, and (c) qualitative differences in pleasures.
    In applying the Principle of Utility, you need especially to avoid crude, shortsighted decisions. As an example of crude Utilitiarianism, someone might argue that a mob lynching a person who committed a heinous murder satisfies the Principle of Utility since the increase in pleasure of the many people in the mob far outweighs the pain experienced by the murderer. To be more careful in applying the Principle here though, we need to consider the long-range consequences of lynching. What are the consequences of allowing mob rule to administer justice? Does a criminal justice system with prescribed rules carefully followed, with courts, with both defendants' and victims' rights, and with due deliberation contribute more to the well-being of society as a whole than the highly emotional, spur-of-the-moment decisions of a mob? Does past experience with lynchings show the likelihood of grievous mistakes and miscarriages of justice that would put large numbers of innocent people in fear for their lives?

    Varieties of Utilitiarianism: Advocates of the Principle of Utility tend to define themselves as either rule-utilitarians or else act-utilitarians. Rule-utilitarians hold that the Principle of Utility establishes general rules that serve as guides to action. Act-utilitarians hold that one must apply the Principle of Utility to the particular action at hand to determine the correct course. What does this difference between them mean? With respect to stealing, a rule-utilitarian argues that the Principle of Utility establishes a general rule against stealing whereas an act-utilitarian argues that one must apply the Principle to the specific circumstancs to decide whether or not stealing is wrong. In the case of a person stealing food from a supermarket to prevent one's family from starving, a rule-utilitarian would criticize the action as a violation of the rule against stealing, whereas an act-utilitarian would at least consider the person's special circumstances in judging the action.

    Strengths:

• The Principle of Utility offers a sensible way of deciding upon social policy in a society where there are many competing interests.
• There is an inherent equality in the Principle, since it takes everyone's interests into account. Even though some persons may get more pleasure than others in the end-result because the greatest good for the whole favors them, each person gets equal consideration in determining the greatest good.
• As persons become more used to cooperating with others in social groups and become more aware of the need for cooperation to solve common problems, they become more appreciative of the value of the Principle of Utility.

    Weaknesses:

• The assumptions are questionable because (1) people need not act only in terms of pleasure and pain, and (2) it is not possible to determine what truly produces the greatest amount of pleasure and least amount of pain for the greatest number, except in relatively trivial situations.
• The Principle of Utility would lead us to do actions that we know to be wrong, since it requires us to mistreat individuals for the sake of the common good. Basic moral notions such as the right to privacy, the right to private property, the right to direct one's life as one sees fit can be overridden by an appeal to the Principle.

The Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth

   The Principle Stated: You ought to act so as to recognize the dignity and infinite worth of every human being.

    Translations of the Principle (in the form of a moral law):

• You ought to act so that the rule governing your action can be willed as a universal law for all rational beings. Thus, you cannot make a lying promise unless you can will it as a universal law that everyone make lying promises.
• You ought to treat other rational beings as ends-in-themselves rather than as means to serve some other purpose. In other words, you ought not to exploit other persons. (Note: Meaning of Exploitation - You are exploiting someone if you use that person to serve your self-interest without proper regard for the person's own best interest.)

    Assumptions:

• Human beings possess a basic dignity and infinite worth, because as rational beings they are able to act according to the recognition of a moral principle. In other words, their ability to function as moral beings entails their dignity and infinite worth.
• The preservation of a genuine morality, that is, one that commands all rational beings in the same way without exception or possibility of error, requires that moral decisions and moral worth depend upon doing the right action with the right intention rather than upon the consequences of the action.

    Explanation: According to the Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth, you cannot sacrifice the worth of human beings for the sake of money, convenience, or others' welfare. Such actions place a finite worth on human beings. Since each human being possesses infinite worth, no collection of benefits to others can outweigh that worth. To take advantage of a customer's ignorance or a worker's desperate need for employment are denials of their infinite worth.
    You should decide upon the right course of action through rational consideration of the basic moral law (in either of the translations given above). Rationally, the moral law specifies a single, correct action that holds for everyone without change over time. For Immanuel Kant, a lying promise is a contradiction (it is the assertion of a promise that is not really a promise because the person is lying); and no rational person could will a contradiction as a universal law for everyone. Likewise, a lying promise exploits one person for the sake of another. Even in the case of food needed for your survival, you still are exploiting someone else if you acquire the food by promising to pay for it later, knowing that you will never do so.
    Moral decisions and moral worth depend upon acting with the right intention, that is, acting from a sense of duty toward the moral law. You should do the right thing and not worry about the consequences. In Kant's view, judging an action by its consequences opens the door to too many different interpretations of the morally correct way to act--so that we end up with a lot of different opinions rather than a common morality.

    Strengths:

• The Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth seems to express our highest, noblest ideal regarding what human beings are. So we would like to accept it ourselves and have other people  accept it as well.
• The Principle sets up a single moral standard for everyone to abide by all of the time, with no exceptions for special people or special circumstances.
• The Principle is based upon reason rather than whims, inclinations, desires or consequences, all of which are so changeable as to make a common moral standard impossible to achieve.

    Weaknesses:

• Moral situations are too complex to be governed by a single moral law that allows for no exceptions and no changes because of time or circumstance. There can be situations, for example, where lying is the morally correct action.
• Moreover, no matter how powerful our reasoning, a single moral law will not always lead to a single, clearcut course of action. Morality is not reducible to mathematical-like certainty.
• Most people will find the Principle of Human Dignity and Infinite Worth to be impractical, no matter how noble it seems at first glance. They will not bind themselves to the Principle when they see the overwhelming majority of other people not following it. In addition, inclinations, desires, and consequences are such fundamental factors in moral considerations that people will not abide by their elimination.
• While human beings possess great worth, it is impractical to assign them infinite worth. Thus, although we may like to think that money is irrelevant when it comes to saving lives, we often make practical decisions that place financial costs ahead of saving lives. For example, because of the enormous costs involved, we not build overpasses at every intersection of a road and railroad tracks in order to prevent all the deaths due to collisions between vehicles and trains.

When you are ready to submit your work, go to D2L, log in, click on Discussions, and then on your particular group under Week 5 Discussion.

© 2006 by Ron Yezzi