Political Morality and Utilitarianism
Morality from its descriptive view refers to an individuals cultural standards, affiliations or social backgrounds that distinguish between good and bad in the human society. This definition is not objective rather, it only portrays what the society considers as either good or bad.
Morality from an ethical point of view refers to what combines the above two definitions and other definitions within a methodical philosophical approach of the ethical realm. Ethics tackle issues like how a moral result can be attained in a given scenario, how to determine moral standards, and so on (Leiter, 2002, p.78).
Political morality may be defined as a set of moral ideologies together with moral equality and how it is expressed by the state through equal treatment (Harris). Political morality, from the principle of universality viewpoint can be taken to mean that if a deed is good or bad to other people, it is good or bad for us. The most basic form of moral principles is that of universality, that is, if something is okay with one person, it is okay with another as well (Alasdair, 2005, p.240).
Utilitarianism is based on the suggestion that the moral value of an act is based exclusively with respect to its utility in providing happiness to mankind. Utilitarianism can be distinguished with the deontological philosophy, different varieties of consequentialism, as well as with virtue ethics (Scarre, 2002, p.1).
The aim of this paper is to discuss political morality, utilitarianism and the question as to whether utilitarianism is an attractive theory of political morality.
Whether utilitarianism is an attractive principle to political theory is highly subjective, debatable, ambiguous and dependent on numerous factors. These factors are made up of the main features of utilitarianism, the forms of utilitarianism, and on how utilitarianism is viewed by two significant personalities in relationship to this topic.
The two forms of utilitarianism are act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism judges the right or wrong of an action in accordance with the consequences of the action in a given situation. Thus, an act is good in a given situation if it amplifies the happiness of the certain people in that situation and it is bad if it does otherwise.
Rule utilitarianism is said to advocate for rules that if applied in some cases, may decrease happiness. For instance, not killing another human being is a good rule, but then it becomes quite tricky if it is applied as case in self defence. Advocates of rule utilitarianism argue that there are exceptional rules that permit the breach of other rules if breach of such rules would amount to happiness, a typical example being as mentioned, self-defence (West, 2004, p.74).
The main features of utilitarianism include
There is the principle of utility This feature focuses on maximizing good deeds and minimizing on the bad.
The theory of value This theory depicts the standard of goodness, based on happiness or pleasure, satisfaction of desires and goals, and the accomplishment of such conditions of affairs as independence, understanding, and various kinds of functioning, achievement, and deep personal relationships.
Consequentialism A deed is justifiably good or bad based on its outcome,
Impartiality One persons happiness is equally as good as the others and vice versa (Beuchamp Bowie, 2004, p.17).
Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher, legal, and social reformer, was a significant figure with respect to utilitarianism, from his school of thought, he argued that the right deed was that which would bring the greatest joy for the greatest number of people, also referred to as the greatest happiness principle. He also recommended a technique of estimating the moral status of a deed, known as the hedonistic school of ethics. Benthams ideologies on legislation revolve around the principle of utility and how the tie into legislative practices. His theory of utility views good as that which creates the greatest amount of happiness, and minimizes pain and evil as that which creates the most pain without happiness (Bentham, 1890).
John Stuart Mills, another philosopher, also contributed considerably to the utilitarianism ideology. His famous philosophy of utilitarianism is referred to as the greatest-happiness principle. It states that one must act so as to create maximum pleasure for the maximum number of people, within reason. Mills key contribution to utilitarianism is his argument that happiness ought to be separated qualitatively. Whereas Bentham takes all forms of pleasure as equal, Mill is of the opinion that moral happiness is superior to physical forms of happiness. Mill claims that there is a difference between pleasure and contentment he claims that the former is of greater value than the latter. In addition, he distinguishes between the greater and lower forms of pleasure with the theory that those who experience both often have a preference over one than the other. This is parallel to Benthams school of thought (Mill, 1871).
As the discussion proceeds, it is imperative to get familiar with certain terminology with respect to this topic as highlighted next.
Hedonism is derived from a Greek word hdonismos, which means happiness. Basically hedonism points out that the only fundamental good is happiness. The different types of hedonism are motivational, egoistic and altruistic. Motivational hedonism stresses that only joy and suffering inspire people to either do or not do things. According to normative hedonism, it is only happiness and all forms of joy have value, whereas it is only pain and forms of pain that have no value. Egoistic hedonists are of the opinion that the happiness of a person is important, hence altruistic hedonists believe that the happiness of everyone is important (McLaughlin Muncie, 2006).
Deontology is also a derivative of Greek words, deon and logos, that means the study of duty this school of thought. It is based on the concept that people have the obligation to abide by moral rules, irrespective of any positive consequences that can be derived from breaking them (Garett, 1996, p.23).
Advocates of deontology ethics are of the opinion that it is valuable to people since it offers them the opportunity to put the welfare of their families above others. They also deem it to be flexible as compared to consequentialism, which can support an individual to hurt their family if it would produce a positive outcome for others. Critics are of the opinion that deontological values can cause people to be degenerate and lack sympathy and that the school of thought is unfounded.
Virtue ethics is an approach to ethics which emphasizes the character of the moral agent, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking (Hursthouse, 1999, p.1).
Consequentialism, has already been pointed above as one of the aspects of utilitarianism. It refers to those moral assumptions which argue that the consequences of a given action form the argument for any viable moral judgment with respect to that action.
The universality principle, is a principle that argues that a wrong or right committed by one individual towards his people or country, is a wrong or right committed to all and sundry irrespective of where one comes from.
Therefore, the terminologies highlighted above together with the features of utilitarianism will form the argument as to whether utilitarianism is an attractive theory with respect political morality or not.
The universality principle on political morality is based on the view that a deed committed against some people, irrespective of whether it is good or bad, applies to all. Thus, the argument formed is that the application of justice ought to be standard. Nevertheless, justice is what individuals perceive it to be, it is subjective. Therefore the question as to whether utilitarianism is a considerable theory when it comes to political morality is a matter of perception. It largely depends on the school of thought from which it emanates.
For instance, from a consequentialist school of thought, there are standards preceding morality, a consequentialist is of the belief that affliction and pain are bad things and that no one should experience them ( Darwall,2003, p.1). But conflict arises when morality is justified according to some of the standards applied to achieve (Kumises, 2006, p.3). Thus, from a consequentialist point of view, judgment on morality should be based purely on the consequences of an action the action applied in order to achieve a happy state of affairs in this case is totally irrelevant.
From a deontologists viewpoint, people are charged with the obligation of conforming by moral rules regardless of morality achieved from infringement of these rules. For instance, during war, it is morally unacceptable to murder innocent civilians as a result of bombing a military target, even if the act would result to eliminating an oppressive government. This school of thought totally opposes one of consequentialism (Darwall, 2003, p.3).
To interprate from the best consequences out of a particular action to the moral action applied regardless of the consequences is not only confined within their respective school of thought alone, but is also dependent to a large extent on what lies within a persons discretion.What a majority find most attractive in the utilitarian theory is its simple form and rational nature. After all, it is only obvious that an individuals moral duty be aimed at opposing pain and endorsing happiness. To establish which precise deed is moral, all that someone needs to do is to establish that one deed which would create the maximum amount of joy and the minimum amount of pain (Mill, 1871).
Act-utilitarians, when deciding on the course of action to take, should reflect on only the consequences of their deeds they dont need to consult the modern theoretical social perception of morality, nor the confusing religious interpretations. The long and short of it, deeds are considered moral or immoral on a step by step basis with respect to the mount of happiness that particular deed will create in that specific situation.
A particular deed does not contain any inherent moral quality independent of its outcome in a particular circumstance. The consequences of an action alone are what gives it a moral worth and those consequences are all someone needs in evaluating to establish that significance and eventually, what course of action one will prefer to take.
Gone is the concept of the total moral rule the act-utilitarian does not need to consider what they think to be outdated, ill-supported, and intangible conceptions of ethical worth. For these reasons, act-utilitarianism continues to have a highly attractive feature to it. It seems the most fundamental moral principle that one ought to choose to uphold pleasure and prevent pain.
Morality must dictate that deeds consequential to moral duty eventually promote the social wellbeing. Pleasure would thus appear to be the ultimate stop point to morality given that the social wellbeing must include, and can perhaps be described exclusively as happiness.
Utilitarianism seems a unanimously generous theory of morality where self-destructive moral rules never exist. After all why would the society desire to support moral doctrines which dont have beneficial results except for the accomplishment of what frequently appear to be moral abstracts aimed more at superstition than reason Contemporary utilitarians more often than not deem anti-utilitarian moral concepts to be non-generous due to their deficiency in consideration of happiness and the general welfare (Bentham, 1890).
Though apparently an attractive theory, utilitarianism faces a lot of disapproval, as it seems to exaggerate the moral worth of pleasure while contradicting some of the societys most fundamental moral standards. Act-utilitarianism emphasize that in every situation, the moral thing to do is that deed which will maximize happiness. But arent there situations where people can experience pleasure as a consequence of immoral deeds, not simply one person or a small group of persons but the majority
Act-utilitarianism, when placed under scrutiny, often can give what the society by and large perceives of as the incorrect answer. Act-utilitarianism in its single-minded search of happiness, can more likely lead one to take no notice of basic human freedoms and basic moral concepts. It is based on the view that the end justifies the means, and that any deed, irrespective of its non-utilitarian explanation, will be good so long as it supports the general happiness more than any other deed.
Is it not true that an action can find sense in itself, that it has its own inherent moral value which is independent of its expected results Consider now, the results themselves - what justifies the ends themselves our desire to seek those ends An action justifies itself because it has its own independent moral worth. Then it might it be true that a means may find meaning in itself other than from its ends that deeds can have their own inherent moral character.
In view of the above, the argument that utilitarianism can be deemed as an attractive theory with respect to political theory has its answer in both yes and no. Incidentally, it depends on the school of thought that one comes from. Additionally, it is a matter of rationality, for instance, a consequentialist would argue that it is common knowledge that in most cases one has to experience some pain to achieve happiness, better still joy. This totally justifies a consequentialists argument. But then, to attain joy irrespective of the actions behind it is totally irrational, more so if the actions behind the attained state of joy are detrimental and destructive to the joy and peace of others. Therefore, if utilitarianism is based on its consequentialism feature, then it is not an attractive theory to political morality.
But there is another twist to it, an interesting one. There is a possibility that aspect of consequentialism in utilitarianism can be watered down. According to Kants theory or Kantianism, individuals should do everything possible to bring out the best possible results. Kant emphasizes on the dignity of persons and consequentialism with its commendable view that, people should strive as much as possible to do what is good and righteous. Kants moral principle properly interpreted creates consequentialist normative principle. This is known Kantian consequentialism principle, with respect to the Kantian consequential principle, and then it is right to argue that utilitarianism is an attractive theory to political morality (Cummiskey, 1996, p.3).
Utilitarianism is based on several concepts pain, suffering, pleasure, utility happiness, consequentialism, and hedonism. Thus, the argument should be based on the above factors. But one can argue that consequentialism is an acceptable feature if and only if it is based on Kantialism and other positive factors. My point ultimately is that utilitarianism can be an attractive feature to political theory depending on ones school of thought. My emphasis is on the school of thought.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment