Part 1
The principle of utility is based on rule and precepts and not actions. The principle states that an act is good when its desires are to increase the maximum pleasure/happiness in the world. In order to understand Mill, it is essential to understand the utilitarianism distinction between act and rule. First of all, act and rule can be conceived “as theories about objective rightness.” In this case, an action is right if its objectivity is to promote happiness. On the other hand, rule utilitarianism states an act is empirically correct if it follows the rules to create happiness. In the second case, the concept of act and rule can be viewed under the theories of moral obligation. In this case, an act should aim to maximize happiness, while a rule utilitarianism requires a person to observe rules that maximize happiness. In other words, “act in a way that promotes happiness the most (…), follow a rule whose general observe promotes happiness the most”. 1 Mill states that “what is right and what is moral has most reason to do.” On utilitarianism rule, he affirms that “we are morally obliged to follow social rules and precepts that maximize our happiness in the greatest extent”. 2 John famous example states that “is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”. 3
John Stuart Mill accepted rule utilitarianism in the case where the “secondary principle” conflicted with the other. In this case, the principle of maximizing utility is employed to solve the existing conflict and determine the type of action that is right. Utilitarianism is not an egoistic theory. An egoistic theory states that people ought, morally, to pursue what is good for them/ selfish interest. In contrast, utilitarianism says that a person should follow desire and happiness, not just for themselves, but also for other people
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
. The principle of utility affirms that “We should act always so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number”. 4 For example, utilitarianism support that an individual should maximize on their happiness, thus if a person enjoys eating chocolate flavored ice cream, they should do. However, if the person is holding a party and majority of the people prefer vanilla, then, as a utilitarian, the individual should choose the flavor that will result in the maximum happiness for the group. This explains why if an act and a rule utilitarianism conflict, then it is morally right to follow rules that will ensure that the action taken falls under the moral duty of an individual.
Kant affirms distinguishes between two types of imperative: categorical and hypothetical categorical. Hypothetical imperative tells an individual what to do to achieve a particular desire “the practical necessity of possible actions as means to something else that is wiled”. 5 Hypothetical imperative only apply to people who aim at achieving a particular goal. For example, if you want enough money to buy a car, then get a job. This, according to Kant, is not morally right. Morality does not tell us what to do to achieve happiness. On the other hand, the categorical imperative, tells us what to do irrespective of our desires. Johnson and Adam, state that “Kant characterized categorical imperative as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that must always follow despite any natural desires or inclination we may have to the contrary.” In other words, categorical imperative requires an individual to follow commands regardless of their desires. This principle justifies that moral obligations are driven by pure reason. The moral law, according to Kant is binding to all humans, this is because what is right or wrong is comprehensible by using the mind.
Kant states that the only thing that determines an action is moral or not is the reason behind it. This is where acts of duty and acts of inclination come to his thinking. For Kant acts of duty are the only legit example of morally good behavior. In contrast, acts of inclination, are amoral- meaning they are neither good nor bad. Unless the act is performed with reason of moral dutiful act, otherwise the action would be considered immoral. 6 For example, if your child is about to be in an accident and you save their life and in result get injured in the process, then the act is an inclined one because in your absence someone else would have done the same. A dutiful act, according to Kant, is one that is primarily driven with regard to a moral code. 7 For example, when one decides to donate to charity in secret is a dutiful act, not unless the action is driven by a sense of satisfaction that is actually an inclined act. Whereas, donating to a charity publicly so as to get admiration from people is not a dutiful act, but rather an inclined act.
Part 2
Moralists have always been seeking fundamental ways to analyze and explain the basic human interactions that would make humanity better. One such moralist is Immanuel Kant. In his theories, he focuses on explaining the code of ethics that should govern all humans regardless of the hypothetical situation. The categorical imperatives of Kant are based on two maxims. The maxims are based on the fact that all decisions made by humans should be in a way that they can be transferred to all situations. Furthermore, Kant theory focuses on the golden rule. In that, all men should treat one another in the same way they hope to be treated. In his analysis, he considers humans as the moral agents that are capable of understanding based on a reason. Moreover, he fathoms that the moral agents should act according to their duty of doing the right thing as humans. Kant considers the reason of actions are based on the duty in the imperative, however, the theories are misinterpreted by Eichmann in his defense in Jerusalem as documented by Arendt.
According to the theory of Kant, the reason is based on the duty of all humans. In the formulation of the theory, man is considered a dutiful creature to the common good. As a philosophical expert explains, “Kant admired the moral capacity of ordinary people—both their capacity to act from moral motives and their capacity to access genuine moral truths”. 8 In that, humans can analyze the situation and understand the morally right response. In knowing the morally right and wrong actions, people are expected to live by the duty to do right at all times. The duty governs the reasons. In that, the reason to do a morally good thing for someone based on the golden rule is the reason for acting proper. The author continues to explain that Kant acknowledges that the result of a moral reason may not always be positive. However, the results are beyond the doer or moral agent thus the actions after a moral action is left to the universe.
Two maxims govern the categorical imperative which forms the basis for the Kant theory. The maxims are based on the reason and duty of all moral agents. Moreover, they insist that the moral agents must be willing to follow the moral code of the agency properly. The first maxim is based on the willingness to do good at all times while the basis the actions on the golden rule. As the author concurs, “a correct moral theory must respect certain features that are implicit in what Kant calls “common cognition”, which is just the term he uses in the Groundwork to refer to our ordinary moral thought”. 9 The moral thoughts of a normal human being are expected to be the compass of what is right and should be done in the given situations. The second maxim is based on the explicit interaction of moral thoughts with the harmony in the society. In what is referred to as ‘the kingdom of ends’, the moralists explains that all actions must be based on the common good according to moral laws.
Adolf Eichmann misinterprets the theories presented by Kant in his re-formulation of the maxims. In Eichmann’s theory, the definitions of reason and duty are contrary to those of Kant. In that, he explains that the reason is based on the human duty to the moral guide which is a leader. In his defense for killing masses during the tyrant rule of Hitler, he explains that he only acted in accordance to his duty. As documented by Arendt, “…had not simply dismissed the Kantian formula as no longer applicable, he had distorted it to read: Act as if the principle of your actions were the same as that of the legislator or the law of the land”. 10 In his re-formulation, the accused mass murderer explained that he had acted in accordance to the call of duty and the reason was to honor his legislator. The author continues to explain that although Eichmann claimed to live in accordance with the theory by Kant, he ignored the moral agency and only followed the duty and what he had reformulated as the universal law. The reformulation takes into account only the duty and reason. However, it fails to consider the moral law and rule that ought to be the guide for a reason.
According to Arendt, Eichmann had gone wrong in the selective absorption of the categorical imperatives. In that, he had somewhat lived by the least important part of the moral theory while ignoring the essential basics. As she explains, “In Kant’s philosophy, that source was a practical reason; in Eichmann’s household use of him, it was the will of the Führer”. 11 The selective choice of the legislator went against the moral law and the personal convictions thus going against the initial idea of Kant.
Conclusively, the theory by Kant explains the basic reasoning behind the universal law and the responsibilities of the humans as moral agents towards their duty. The duty is based on the universal moral convictions that are dictated by the agency. In choosing to kill people, Eichmann went against the moral law of the universe which requires all people to treat one another as they would want to be treated. The reformulation fails to capture the basic law used by Kant. The misinterpretation and failure to follow the common law leads to the loss of life thus going against the golden rule. In the analysis by Arendt, it is clear that Eichmann had interpreted the theory to offer a reason for his immoral practices.
Bibliography
Arendt, Hannah. "Introduction to readings." The Integrity Project. Last modified March 6, 2016. https://integrityproject.org/projects/portraits-of-integrity/hannah-arendt/.
Chung, Kenneth K. "Kant and the Fact of Reason." PhD diss., The University of Western
Ontario, 2010.
Johnson, Robert, and Cureton Adam. "Kant's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Last modified July 7, 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#CatHypImp.
Schefczyk, Michael. "Mill, John Stuart: Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | An Encyclopedia of Philosophy Articles Written by Professional Philosophers. Last modified 2018. https://www.iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/#H5
