Immanuel Kant

¶ … Moral Objectivism: Utilitarianism vs. Kantian Deontology There are Four Parts Total. You must Complete All Four. "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.

It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do." (a) What does Jeremy Bentham mean by this quote? (b) How does Robert Nozick's main point in "The Experience Machine" bear on the view(s) that Bentham presents in this quote? (c) Explain the differences between Bentham and John Stuart Mill in regards to the issue of what makes one pleasure more valuable than another.

Bentham is something of a materialist who believes that people make decisions based on their own personal utility. For example, if you believe that the risk associated with robbing a bank than the potential gain then you would rationally carry out the act. If you believed the risk or pain was greater than the reward or pleasure then you would opt to do something else. Bentham believes that people make rational decisions based on pleasure and pain.

Nozick expands on the ideas associated with pleasure by pointing out the fact that well-being is more complicated than pleasure alone. Individuals who focus on their own well-being over a longer course of time might forego a short-term pleasure (hedonism) for something that promotes well-being over a longer period of time. Nozick uses a thought experiment to make these points against hedonistic pleasures. The biggest difference between Bentham and Mills is that Bentham believed that happiness was all more or less equal.

Mills expanded on happiness and believed that some types of happiness were more substantive than other types of happiness. Basically Bentham viewed happiness as more of a static concept and Mills believed that there were degrees of happiness that were not necessarily equal. 2. Recall the following example from Bernard Williams' article: Jim is in a small South American town as a tourist. As he is on a botanical expedition, he finds himself in the central square of the town.

Along a wall are twenty Indians who are about to be shot. The captain Pedro, offers Jim the chance to shoot one Indian and the rest will be freed as a special mark of the occasion. However, if he does not shoot the one, then all twenty will be killed. (a).

According to Williams, what must the Utilitarian say about what Jim ought to do (make sure to state whether the action you state would be prohibited, permitted, or required)? According to Williams, what doctrine is the Utilitarian committed to that entails this choice? Explain what this doctrine is and why this doctrine entails that Jim ought to take this action. ( b). Why and on what grounds does Williams take issue with this? More specifically, what are two major problems with Utilitarianism according to Williams? Explain.

Under strict utilitarianism Jim would have to kill the one person. Utilitarianism focuses strictly on the consequences of actions and the outcomes. Williams takes issue with this idea because first it does not consider intentionality. Philosophers such as Kant have argued that it is really the motivation behind the act that is more important than the actual outcome which is sometimes difficult to control. Another critique that Williams has is that it is difficult to determine what the outcomes could be in most situations.

Reducing the potential outcomes to a reductionist equation would fail to give a holistic account of the actual complexities involved. 3. David is poor and is very hungry. Sarah is a rich woman who owns a bakery. David steals some of Sarah's bread, knowing that it is very unlikely that Sarah will ever notice it is gone. (a) Explain how Mill and Kant would each determine whether David's action is morally right or wrong using the main action-guiding principle of each (You must state and define each principle in your explanation.

You only need to use one of either the First or Second formulations of Kant's action-guiding principle). Kant would undoubtedly argue that the action was immoral. Good will originates within the individual's motivation and thus the individual has a duty to not steal as a virtuous position. Mills would undoubtedly see the action in the opposite light. He would undoubtedly point to the inequality as a justification for an individual undertaking whatever action was necessary for self-preservation. The good of feeding the hungry would outweigh the wrongs associated with stealing. 4.

As John Stuart Mill states in his Utilitarianism, "He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty, or the hope of being paid for his trouble." (a) What's Mill's point here? (b) Would saving a fellow creature from drowning with the intention of being paid count as a moral action according to Kant? Explain why or why not. (c) Explain the difference between the views of Kant and Mill regarding the relation between motive and morality of an action.

(d) According to you whose view makes more sense? Kant's or Mill's? Why? Mills places the value on the outcome of the action. As long as the creature being saved is the outcome, the motivation does not make a significant difference. Even the creature themselves would probably not care too much about the motivation so long as the creature was being saved. Mills view took more of a macro view of.