Before young children can think and reason for themselves, they will typically be taught by parents, guardians and advisors on right and wrong behavior. Because this behavior is not self-evident and varies from culture to culture, it may be more apropos to call this education a passing of socially acceptable etiquette within the said culture. For nearly 2000 years attempts to understand and explain this phenomenon remained at a stand-still. Nichomachean Ethics, written by Aristotle, would prove a static mainstay until ethical philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill would begin to question the paradigm established by Aristotle. The purpose of this essay is to examine and compare the strikingly dissimilar philosophies of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill.
Kant’s writings and ethical philosophies are strongly absolutist in nature. Absolutism, in an ethical sense, is the idea that the unbreakable rules of physics apply to human interaction and their moral implications. Such thinking leads Kant to believe that for someone to consider a choice to be the correct course of action, it must first be universalized or applicable to anyone, anywhere, at any time. For Mill, however, the choice of action was not nearly as important as the end result. From a teleological standpoint such as this, one might argue that the decision made by a person only has significant ethical implications if it caused harm to someone else. According to Mill, if I were to cause harm to myself, it is ethically okay as long as no one else was harmed.
Mill’s Harm Principle flies directly in the face of the first of Four Duties outlined by Kant; this perfect duty to self is centered on self preservation. The second duty is more related to being honest and keeping promises to others. This deontological standpoint claims that a person has certain duties to themselves and others and that these duties are universal. I was told as a child that to lie is universally and morally wrong, however as I have gotten older, I find that sometimes a lie can bring about the most pleasure/happiness for more people. This is the focal point of Mill’s Utilitarianism; as long as the majority of people involved will not be harmed and/ or will be made happy, it is an ethically sound decision. Again this is a teleological or “ends justify the means” approach. Kant however espouses that it is a person’s duty to make the most universally acceptable decision without regard to the outcome. In other words, that I should not lie even thought it may make people upset because to tell a lie is always wrong.
In my opinion these contrasting philosophies share one common flaw. Both concepts remove the accountability and responsibility that an individual should employ in making moral decisions. For me to cast aside my moral beliefs because it will make more people happy is negligent of my own happiness. On the other hand, to ignore the possible outcomes of my choice because my actions are in accordance with the social and cultural morays of a society is just foolish. I should be willing to think for myself and arrive at my own moral conclusions instead of relying on cultural conditioning to tell me what is right; I should also not be willing to allow the potential happiness of the masses to determine my course of action.
No comments:
Post a Comment