Nominated March of Dimes 2017 Nurse of the Year

 

 

I was honored that one of my co-workers recently nominated me for the March of Dimes 2017 Nurse of the Year award. Thank you, Jessica!

Dawn Pisturino, RN
March 28, 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Utilitarianism and Kantianism: A Comparison

 

 

 

 

Abstract

Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory that determines good and bad actions based on the consequences. Kantianism is a deontological ethical theory that emphasizes the intrinsic value of the acts themselves, the intention behind the acts, or the rules which govern the acts. Both theories seek to maximize good and minimize suffering for the human race.

Utilitarianism and Kantianism: A Comparison

Utilitarianism

       Classical utilitarianism originated with Jeremy Bentham in the 18^th century.  He broke down utilitarianism into two basic principles: the consequentialist principle and the utility principle.

       According to the consequentialist principle, “the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the goodness or badness of the results” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  An act should result in “the greatest good of the greatest number” (Frost, 1989).  He also believed that “good and bad . . . are determined by social factors” (Frost, 1989).  From this perspective, the end justifies the means.

       The utility (hedonist) principle states that “the only thing that is good in itself is some specific type of state” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  A state is good if it provides more pleasure than pain.

       Bentham devised a formula, called the hedonic calculus, which assigns hedons — units of happiness — to experiences (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  The number of hedons determines whether the act is good or bad.

       Bentham is known as an act-utilitarian.  He believed that “an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).

       John Stuart Mill, on the other hand, wanted to distinguish pleasure from sensualism.  He believed that “intellectual, aesthetic, and social enjoyments” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017) were more important for human happiness than lower pleasures such as food, drink, and sex.  Lower pleasures can lead to pain, whereas higher pleasures tend to provide more substantial, long-term benefit. 

       Mill was a rule-utilitarian who believed that “an act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself or member of a set of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available alternative” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).

       John Stuart Mill was also a Utopian in the sense that “he dreamed of a society in which the happiness and prosperity of all was certain, and in which all would share the wealth of the group” (Frost, 1989).  But he admitted that humans are complex creatures and “the factors which must be taken into consideration are so numerous that it is impossible for us to predict with any high degree of certainty” (Frost, 1989).

       Humans need action-guiding rules to help them make choices that maximize the good for the greatest number and minimize suffering (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  At the lowest level are simple commands such as “Don’t Kill.”  On the next level, the commandment can be modified to adapt to a changing situation: “Don’t Kill Unless . . .”

       The remainder rule, as a last resort, says to use best judgment when two moral principles conflict (act utilitarianism) (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).

       Modern philosopher Kai Nielsen is an act-utilitarian who added another dimension by concluding that human responsibilities include what they do and what they fail to do (negative responsibility) (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).

Kantianism

       By contrast, Immanuel Kant believed that “by reason we can form an idea of this world, this universe” (Frost, 1989).  Humans need “an absolutely necessary Being, God, who is the cause of everything” (Frost, 1989) in order to perform good acts.  They must act “as if this kind of a

world existed” (Frost, 1989), whether real or not.  The moral law, for Kant, is derived from reason and shapes human values.  This is called rational intuition (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).
      The phenomenal world, according to Kant, is based on experience (Frost, 1989).  The noumenal world is based on reason (Frost, 1989).  Reason leads to the practical experience.   In developing his overriding  doctrine of the categorical imperative, Kant commanded humans to “always act so that you can will the maxim or determining principle or your action to become universal law [the principle of the law of nature]; act so that you can will that everybody shall follow the principle of your action [the principle of autonomy]” (Frost, 1989).

       Kant believed that the Good Will is the only thing that is intrinsically good (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  Mental intellect and talents do not qualify because they can be corrupted.  But they are redeemed if accompanied by a Good Will.

       He further believed that humans have a “dominant place in the universe” (Frost, 1989) and should be treated as an end rather than a means.  This is called the principle of ends (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).

       Kant was a rule-intuitionist and continued Samuel Pufendorf’s list of duties that humans must perform: duty to God, duty to oneself, and duty to others (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  But the most important duty is to fulfill “moral duty solely for its own sake” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).

Conclusion

       While utilitarians were empiricists who considered the consequences of their actions to determine good and bad, Kant was an absolutist and rationalist who believed that a transcendental world could be detected through reason and intuition.  He believed that a higher power was necessary in order for humans to understand the moral laws that would guide their actions.  An inherent Good Will, accompanied by mental acuity and talents, was also necessary to ensure good acts that would influence universal law.

 

References

 

Frost, S.E. (1989). Basic teachings of the great philosophers. New York, NY: Anchor Books

Pojman, L.P., & Fieser, J. (2017). Ethics: Discovering right and wrong. Boston, MA: Cengage

       Learning

 

Dawn Pisturino

Ethics 151

Mohave Community College

Kingman, Arizona

March 8, 2017

Copyright 2017 Dawn Pisturino. All Rights Reserved.

 

      

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ethical Egoism: Strengths and Weaknesses

 

 

 

 

Ethical Egoism: Strengths and Weaknesses

Dawn Pisturino

Mohave Community College

Abstract

Ethical egoism urges people to do the things which best serve their own self-interest.  They should strive to become the best they can possibly be.  In order for this moral principle to hold up, however, it must meet certain criteria.

Ethical Egoism: Strengths and Weaknesses

       Before the principle of ethical egoism can be legitimately defined as a moral code, it must contain certain characteristics.

Prescriptivity

       Tibor R. Machan (1979) describes ethical egoism as “morality that is tied to benefiting the agent.”  As a moral code, it guides people to be the best they can be and to pursue the best possible goals (Machan, 1979).  It sets a standard of excellence for ambitious people.  In corporate America, the prescriptive statement would be, “Do Your Best!”  In the college setting, the commandment would be, “Follow Your Dreams!”  On the surface, this sounds reasonable enough.  We want our best and brightest to succeed.  But not everybody is ambitious or able to follow this moral code.  Many people are lazy and want to work just hard enough to get by.  Others do not have the necessary talents or mental capacity or stamina.  Ayn Rand believed that a person’s own life is the ethical purpose for his life (Machan, 1979).  If this is true, nobody is obligated to pursue goals that are self-enhancing and ambitious.  People have the right to be lazy and to live a mediocre life.  Therefore, ethical egoism does not guarantee any benefit to society.  It can serve as a prescription for success for some people, but it cannot command people to strive for success.

Universalizability

       According to Pojman and Fieser (2017), moral principles “must apply to all people who are in a relevantly similar situation.”  But many egoists, like Jesse Kalin, believe that ethical egoism is a “personal ethical doctrine” that does not have to apply to all people (Machan, 1979).  This

frees people from conformity, but it opens the door to contradictions because people will not behave consistently (Machan, 1979).  In fact, James Rachels condemns ethical egoism as a threat to society because it undermines social cohesion (Machan, 1979).  Ethical egoism satisfies the characteristic of universalizability in the sense that every person has the right to make his own choices and pursue his own goals.  But it fails in providing a consistent guiding action for individuals to engage in positive conduct that promotes the welfare of society.

Overridingness

       Can ethical egoism as a moral principle override other principles?  J.A. Brunton believes that “the egoistic part in all of us will always find rules, reason, and justification” for our actions (Machan, 1979).  All moral codes contain biases, no matter how noble, because they reflect the individuality of human beings.  Ethical egoism is biased towards the self (Machan, 1979).  The egoist may be able to override his sense of self long enough to help another human being, but only if it best serves his own self-interest (Machan, 1979).  At the very least, he would act “with prudence” to protect his own reputation and social standing (Machan, 1979).  If his own self-preservation is more important to him than his “social commitments,” however, he will not care about engaging in altruistic behavior (Machan, 1979).

Publicity

       Moral principles that have authority to consistently guide people are widely known and publicized.  Most people have heard the commandment, “Thou Shall Not Kill.”  It has become part of the culture.  Most corporations try to project a benevolent and altruistic image in order to earn the public’s business and respect, whether or not they engage in that kind of behavior.  Corporations notoriously try to save money by cutting corners and reducing jobs in order to maximize profits.  Corporate executives view this as goal-directed actions that provide value to the corporation (the ethical egoist point of view).  If the corporation is producing unsafe products and working conditions as a result of its actions, however, it cannot publicize the results of these actions because the public will object.  Therefore, the ethical egoist point of view only works when corporate executives choose to engage in positive behavior that does not cause harm to others.  Eric Mack confirms this when he states, “the morally good, with respect to each human being, is the successful performance, and the results of the successful performance, of those actions that sustain [living things]” (Machan, 1979).

Practicability

       Thomas Hobbes stated that it is in the best self-interest of people to obey the rules because “people are inherently selfish” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  Without an overriding moral code, society would fall into chaos.  But the moral code must be universal and agreed on by society.  And the threat of punishment or exclusion should be enough to prevent people from breaking the rules.

 

      David Gauthier describes the ethical egoist as “a person who on every occasion and in everrespect acts to bring about as much as possible of what he values” (Machan, 1979).  By this reasoning, anything can be considered valuable by individuals.  If a drug addict values the effects of heroin, he will devote his time to finding and using heroin.  If a business owner values profit, he will devote his time to making money.  The drug addict is satisfying his own needs.  But if he is stealing in order to support his habit, he is not only acting in his own self-interest but behaving selfishly and harming others.  The business owner may try to deal with his customers honestly, but if he is feeling stressed about money, he may deliberately cheat someone in a moment of need.  He is fulfilling his own self-interest but behaving selfishly by harming the customer.

       In both cases, a standard of excellence was not pursued or achieved, so ethical egoism failed to provide practical and positive effects for society.

Conclusion

       Ethical egoism only works as a legitimate moral code if the agent performs the right action to achieve the right result with the right intention from the beginning (Pojman & Fieser, 2017). 

 

References

 

Machan, T. (1979). Recent work in ethical egoism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16(1),

       1-15. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009734

Pojman, L.P., & Fieser, J. (2017). Ethics: Discovering right and wrong. Boston, MA:

       Cengage Learning
Dawn Pisturino
February 27, 2017
Ethics 151
Mohave Community College
Kingman, Arizona
Copyright 2017 Dawn Pisturino. All Rights Reserved.