Please discuss how the Principle of Utility and the Categorical Imperative could be applied in the “Pregnancy” moral dilemma case attached is the moral dilemma case.
Kant & Mill .
Swine & Mill: Mill responds to the objection that Utilitarianism is a “doctrine worthy of swine” basically arguing that someone who says that has a pretty low opinion of human nature. The pleasures of swine (pigs) are not the same as the pleasures of human beings. Those people who disagree with Utilitarianism, according to Mill, think that by “pleasure” is meant only physical pleasures. This is where Mill goes on to discuss the difference between quantity and quality of pleasures. He goes on to ask “Is it better to be a pig satisfied, or a human being dissatisfied?” In other words, would it be better (would I be happier?) if I were an animal who has all my needs met and is content or a human being who has the capacity for much higher pleasures and not always have them met? Mill, of course, would say the latter. I reflect on this at my house when I am bundling up to go to school in a snow storm after staying up late to grade papers and as I leave I look at my dogs all curled up in a blanket on the sofa. Who’s happier?
Utilitarianism & Consequences: Most of the discussion when writing legislation is based on the prediction of consequences. Will the economic stimulus program work? Some very, very smart people disagree about it. On the issue of extinction of species, again there are so many factors that need to be considered, how do we know? Well, we make the best predictions that we can. But sometimes, we are wrong. That is why Kant says we can’t base ethics on potential consequences. Right and wrong, according to Kant, can’t simply be based on predictions. It must be based on something more solid than that. I’m not so sure that the utilitarian is as easy going as you suggest. Always acting to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number is a pretty daunting task. That means that my interest never comes first. It always just counts as equal to everyone else’s.
However, if we think about pleasure and pain in a larger sense, if the media control how we think, can’t it influence us to make choices that will not ultimately lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number? For instance, cigarette advertising or advertising encouraging people to buy big gas guzzlers. Or, on the other hand, media coverage of a war that is biased. The media supported the administration’s contention that there were weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq. There was much evidence out there to question the administration’s contention but they didn’t pursue it.
The Categorical Imperative: Kant says I can’t predict consequences accurately, I can only ask myself if the maxim of my act can become universal law. In other words, I have to ask myself what would happen if everyone did this? What would happen if everyone broke promises whenever they felt like it? Or even, if one individual breaks promises? In the first case, it would destroy the meaning of the term “promise.” No one would take it seriously. In the second case, it would mean that that particular individual’s promises were meaningless and they would not be taken seriously.
Kant says that a good will is the only thing that is good without exception. Good will means doing what is right because it is right rather than because I think it will bring about good consequences. Imagine that one day I walk into my favorite Starbucks to celebrate my earning a CPR certificate, I go up to the counter and order my grande nonfat extra foamy latte and pay. While I’m waiting feeling very pleased with myself for my accomplishment, the fellow behind the counter collapses and appears to be going into cardiac arrest. I look around and I am the only other person in the coffee shop. Lucky for me that I just finished CPR training. So I leap behind the counter and begin to administer CPR. Unfortunately, the coffee shop employee was NOT having a heart attack and by administering CPR somehow by some fluke I have killed him.
Am I morally responsible for the death? Was my intention to kill? Absolutely not. In fact, my intention was exactly the opposite. My intention was good even though it was not effective. Would I be found guilty of murder in a court of law? No. Why? Because it was not my intention and there was no way I could be expected to know that I was doing the wrong thing. My intention to do the right thing is what Kant calls good will. My intention was good. And since I cannot control the consequences of my actions I must try to act from good will. How do I know what good will is? By following the Categorical Imperative, that is, always acting in such a way that my act could become universal law. Let’s think about my coffee shop situation. Which would we want to become universal law? Never helping people who seem to be in great danger because it might not work out or helping people in great danger and sometimes having it not work out the way we hoped? Probably, the second. The Utilitarian would say that my intention has no moral merit at all. What is important is the consequences.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|