Kant Versus Bentham

Throughout the realm of philosophy there have been many arguments on the idea of ethics and what motivates human nature and guides our judgments. I will be focusing on two philosophers both of whom tried to answer that question. Jeremy Bentham whose views on what should be used to guide our judgments as to what's wrong or right have been defined as utilitarianism. Focusing on a different idea using morals and a sense of duty to the greater good comes, Immanuel Kant's ethics of deontology, or the ethics of rules and duties.

Jeremy Bentham's ideas of utilitarianism focus on the experiences of pleasure over pain. To Bentham utility is the property in any object that tends to produce benefit, good, pleasure or happiness or prevent the happening of pain/evil, or unhappiness to the party where interest is considered. In other words Jeremy Bentham's idea of what is good or by what morals we should act on is simply what gives us the greatest pleasure in doing so. Depending on which outcome diminishes happiness that choice or outcome is bad. Whichever increases happiness that is good. Bentham defines how much pleasure or pain an act will produce by judging it in seven criteria: intensity, duration, certainty, uncertainty, proximity or remoteness, fecundity, purity, extent of action to others.

One of the main focus points of Jeremy Bentham's philosophy is the Hedonistic Calculus. Bentham created a measurement system to determine how much pleasure an action or decision yields. It focuses on seven criteria: Its intensity, its certainty or uncertainty, its propinquity or remoteness, its fecundity, its purity, and its extent. Of the seven criteria only four are used when determining happiness for the individual, those are: its intensity, its duration, its certainty or uncertainty, and its propinquity or remoteness. The other three are used when judging the happiness of a number of other persons.

On the other side of the fence is a philosopher by the name of Immanuel Kant. He proposes that duty and rules should govern our actions. To Kant the only good thing in the world is good will, one that out of duty wills consistently and is rational. Kant's ethics are guided by underlying principles called categorical imperatives. Or principles which are used to guide judgment, these principles simply state "do y" there is no material gain or otherwise, instead these actions should be repeated to the extent of the universal maxim. These principles state two ideas: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law, and Treat humanity not as a means to an end. To Kant duty and rationality comes before all else, consequences are not under our control according to him.

I feel that of the two philosopher's Kant's position is more defensible. Kant has set up guidelines and rules which prevent the continuation of unethical acts, such as suicide and murder, according to his guidelines. Kant's ethics can be judged and accepted universally, unlike Bentham's ideas of utility because happiness is a measureable object, which differs between human beings, it is much harder to universalize it. Kant would disagree with Bentham simply because Bentham does not provide a complete and solid foundation for how one should act. He would argue that, according to Bentham's theories murder can be justified, although it would produce pain on one end. The happiness of the man committing the act could be greater. Kant would also say that because Bentham's ethics system is about obtaining pleasure it is not really in the realm of ethics but rather in the category of, "Hypothetical Imperatives," or simply if you want "x" do "y." The only type of, imperative, that falls into the ethical realm, is the category of Categorical Imperative," or do "y."

Also Kant will point out that, Utilitarianism seems to have no measures to prevent violation of each individual's or smaller groups of individuals' rights if such a violation increases the happiness for the greater good. In duty ethics, Kant has a system in place to ensure that the rights of the individual are protected not by an ideal of happiness but by an ideal of moral law. Kant would say that in Bentham's system of Utilitarianism, for example, a smaller group that is protesting gay rights for themselves might be ignored due to the fact of the group not having those rights provides a greater benefit to the whole of the community. The community wants to keep a Christian image so they will consistently deny that group those rights. Thus the community is treating the group as an end to their means of happiness.

Kant will also argue that in Bentham's system of ethics that it takes no account of intentions or motivations of our actions and unethical intentions or motivations can be justified. Hence you can justify robbing someone because you needed money for food to be happy. According to Kant this reasoning falls under the Hypothetical Imperative, and would eventually terminate itself. Everyone would rob each other to achieve food to become happy and eventually no one would be willing to trust anyone. It will eventually end itself and can no longer be willed to be a universal law. Hence it cannot be a universal law, and in the realm of ethics because it is not a Categorical Imperative.

Bentham in his own defense would simply argue that, there is no such thing as a sort of motive which is a bad one in itself, nor which in itself is exclusively a good one. If any sort of, judgment is either good or bad on the score of its effects, this is the case of the individual occasion, and with individual motives. What Bentham means is that in any situation there is a good or bad ethical choice but that choice is defined by the type of situation and the individual calculating the choices. To Bentham there is not one definite option for a scenario as Kant suggests. An example of this would be a robbery, if a man asks you for your money or he will kill you, according to Kant, you should refuse to give him the money based on ethics. Bentham would say that there are many other ways to look at this situation. You could perhaps run, fight back, or just give the man the money in exchange for your life because money is a material asset.

Bentham would also argue that it is in human nature to seek pleasure and avoid pain. He would say that as mortal beings we value our life and the lives of others. Perhaps it is not ethical to turn in a criminal who you think is innocent because the laws of society claim him as guilty, whereas under the Duty Ethics of Kant you would have to turn him in because the consequences are not judged or weighted. Bentham would also argue that under Kant's ethics system, many actions can never be justified, such as: murder, theft, lying, suicide,. Such actions might be needed to say save the life of fellow humans. What if you were in Germany during World War II. You were also a home owner and had many Jews stored in your basement. Under Kant's system when the German officer came to ask if you were hiding any Jews, you would have to say yes. Hence many people would be killed because you could not lie. Bentham would say this is unacceptable sometimes humans need to lie to preserve ourselves and others.

In a final response to the criticisms of Bentham, Kant would simply argue that, in the realm of Ethics it is not ethical to obtain a material or emotional reward for your choices. By giving the robber your money you are allowing the act of robbery to continue. By not lying to the Nazi you are allowing mistrust to enter into the community. Hence by following both of the judgments used in those scenarios you will eventually end in a place where nether situation could exist. No one would have trust in another human being, and everyone would commit robbery as a means to obtain money. Kant would simply say, the consequences are out of your hands.

Bibliography

Mulvaney, R. J. (2009). Classical Philosophical Questions (13th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.