George Simply Paying Attention. It a Long

George simply paying attention. It a long drive back home family's winter vacation, Interstate coming downtown area city. His wife front. In backseat young daughter younger brother, feeling sick home.ID

George's dilemma: Kant vs. consequentialism (utilitarianism)

According to Kant's categorical imperative, the ethical actor must behave as if he is setting a law for all time, not merely dealing with the specifics of every ethical situation. Taking a bribe is wrong, and factors such as George's weariness, his son's illness, and other situational factors do not make the taking of the bribe less immoral. The categorical imperative is categorical because there are no conditions limiting its expression. It is stated by Kant: "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law' (4:402). This is the principle which motivates a good will, and which Kant holds to be the fundamental principle of all of morality" (Johnson 2010).

A more colloquial formulation of the categorical imperative might be that 'two wrongs don't make a right'. This can be seen even in the example of George's speeding, an action which Kant would also disapprove of, given that the contingent circumstances of George's son's illness were used by George as an excuse to speed. It is never okay to break the law and George's law-breaking led to his subsequent dilemma with the police officer.

It is easy to find 'good' reasons to be immoral and far harder to obey moral precepts. There are many emotional reasons that George feels compelled to break the law but there are no real moral reasons to agree to the bribe. His son is not deathly ill, and although the police officer is behaving immorally, George's immorality will simply compound the problem. What will George do the next time he is offered a bribe, once he sets the principle that he will engage in bribery to make life easy for himself and his family?

A consequentialist might say that that in this situation, extending a bribe will make George's family happier -- his son can go home and his wife and daughter will never know about the bribe. Consequentialism views morality as something that must be engaged in on a situation-by-situation basis. One example of consequentialism is utilitarianism, which proposes a strict calculus for deciding what moral actions to take. In general, utilitarianism supports the idea of doing the 'greatest good for the greatest possible number' of people. George could rationalize that if he gives the bribe, those who might be morally corrupted by his actions (his children and wife) will be none the wiser, he gets to go home to watch the game, and his son can be put to bed at a reasonable hour. "Utilitarianism is also distinguished by impartiality and agent-neutrality. Everyone's happiness counts the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the good impartially considered. My good counts for no more than anyone else's good. Further, the reason I have to promote the overall good is the same reason anyone else has to so promote the good. It is not peculiar to me" (Johnson 2010). The desires of the family are promoted first and foremost by giving the bribe.

However, it is equally possible to apply consequence-based ethics to suggest that George should not give the policeman the money. How can he trust someone who is so blatantly unethical, after all? And he will still have to pay the money and his son will still be sick so little good is accomplished. Utilitarianism or promoting a good action is not the same as just doing what feels right, or engaging in blatant egotism. "If one should act to help others because it supports a system in which one's own happiness is more likely, then it looks really like a form of egoism. If one should help others because that's the right thing to do -- and, fortunately, it also ends up promoting one's own interests, then that's more like utilitarianism, since the promotion of self-interest is a welcome effect but not what, all by itself, justifies one's character or actions" (Driver 2009). What about the policeman, if he is convicted of taking a bribe? What if George gets caught when there is an investigation of the policeman's behavior, and he is exposed? The potential rewards of simply going home vs. The costs of not offering the bribe and going to the station do not necessarily weigh in favor of offering the bribe.

However, Kant would state that the indeterminate consequences of George's actions argue in favor of following the categorical imperative. It is very difficult to discern what the results of our moral actions will be in the future. That is why it is so important to act morally in the here and now. If George offers the bribe, the unethical policeman may let him go home -- or he may use the fact that George accepts the bribe against George in a court of law as part of a 'sting' operation, or when the unethical practices of the department are exposed George may be publically exposed and humiliated. If George rejects the bribe, and the policeman tries to punish him, George will at least have acted morally.