October 20, 2008

The Ethical Philosophies of Aristotle, Kant, Betham & Mill

What is right and wrong? How should I make moral decisions?

These questions have been present in society throughout history. Issues of ethics and

morality have been debated for centuries, resulting in a multitude of opinions and philosophies.

Among philosophers, four scholars of three distinct schools of thought have made their mark on

ethical studies: Aristotle, Kant, and Bentham & Mill. Aristotle’s belief in the formation of

human virtues, Kant’s belief differ in (whatever ways) and are similar in (other ways).

First, Aristotle’s philosophy revolves around the following tenets: everything a person

does is done in order to gain an end; the supreme good is happiness for the community; and

refining personal virtues will lead to the supreme good. The first of these tenets is the premise

for the other two. Aristotle argued that every one of our actions benefits the individual- even

something as basic as brushing one’s teeth. This subordinate aim can lead to the superior aims:

to smell good, attract a spouse, get a job that will lead to a successful career, and be happy.

Although Aristotle believed happiness could come in different forms for different people, the

ultimate happiness would benefit the entire community. In this way, Aristotle is a proponent of

actions that benefit others as well as oneself. So, moral decisions are based in pursuit of this

community happiness. This is good, because it does not allow anyone to think of himself or

herself solely. Aristotle proclaimed that the method for making virtuous decisions was to refine

one’s personal virtues, so that it becomes second nature. Consciously practicing the self-control

necessary to do this is imperative. For example, one of his twelve virtues is modesty. When a

person first makes an effort to be modest, he or she must be mindful of his purpose and be sure

not to fall into two potential vices. If a person is too modest, he or she will be bashful; not being
modest enough is shameless. The problem with his methods is that they are very subjective. It

requires a great deal of personal evaluation. Also, it supposes that by practicing virtues, moral

decisions will come naturally. Aristotle believed that tailoring your personal virtues will lead to

making decisions that, in turn, will lead to happiness. His belief in good people rather than good

actions differs from many philosophers. However, it is simpler in that it does not make it

necessary to focus on whether a particular decision is right or wrong. Instead, the issue is

whether the person making the decision actually leads an ethical life.

Kant’s philosophy is deontological, meaning it focuses on the actions themselves,

regardless of the consequences. Immanuel Kant was an absolutist, like Aristotle, so he believed

that all morals are true for everyone in every circumstance. He called these rules the categorical

imperative. First, he proclaimed “Do not act on any principle that cannot be universalized.”

Also, he believed that human beings are the highest point of creation, so they must be treated as

ends. Third, he said that we should behave as though everyone else has the same morals, like we

live in a “kingdom of ends.” These three tenets provide a means to discern whether actions are

morally right. The advantage of this method is that it is possible to determine through reason

what is right or wrong in every situation. Followers of Kantian ethics should never feel

conflicted. They do not have to consider possible outcomes. Arriving at an ethical position is

completely objective. On the other hand, this method is not appealing to most people because it

can be considered unrealistic. It is based completely on reason rather that intuition. The fact is,

though, that humans have emotions, feelings and instincts that are significant in ethical decisions.

Kant would say that acting out of compassion, for instance, is not virtuous. In addition, the fact

that there is no regard for consequences can cause a lot of controversy. The example of a

murderer asking you where your father is presents such a dilemma. By following Kantian ethics,
you would tell the murderer the truth and then be forced to protect your father. You are not

allowed to consider the negative consequences of telling the truth. Kant’s assumption that we

live in a “kingdom of ends” may be considered naïve. If he was right, the murderer would not

even be a threat. However, there are obviously people who consider humans a means rather than

an end, and that should have an impact on moral decisions.

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill developed the teleological theory, utilitarianism,

which is directly opposed to Kantian ethics. While Kant focused on actions, Bentham & Mill

were concerned with consequences. Their main belief was that humans pursue pleasure, and this

is the ultimate good. This hedonistic approach influenced their ethical philosophy tremendously.

For Bentham & Mill, the morality of an action is determined by the resulting pleasure. The

hedonic calculator allows utilitarians to see which course of action in any given situation should

be followed because it provides the most pleasure. This calculator considers the amount of

pleasure generated by an action including intensity, certainty, and propinquity. This method

implies that no one can act solely for their own pleasure; thus, it is democratic. Also, it focuses

on the happiness of the majority. Also, Bentham’s “act utilitarianism” is flexible and more

realistic than Kantian ethics. However, it is a problematic approach. For example, almost

anything can be justified using “act utilitarianism” if it generates happiness. John Stuart Mill

realized this issue and amended the philosophy to become “rule utilitarianism”, which focuses on

a more general happiness. He ensured that individual cases are put into context. So, even

though it may make gang members happy to beat up a kid, they cannot justify their actions

because they do not lead to the greatest good for their community. Another problem with

utilitarianism is that it makes no provision for minority rights. Even with Mill’s additions to the

philosophy, “rule utilitarianism” could justify slavery, since the majority of society could benefit.
 Overall, the philosophies of these three philosophers represent different parts of a wide

spectrum of ethics. All of them are theories that have flaws in practice. Aristotelian ethics

provides little guidance on day to day ethical decisions. Kantian ethics is unrealistically

detached from the consequences of actions. And, Utilitarianism has no solid morals that can

withstand a misguided majority. Among the three, however, Utilitarianism is the best scheme

for the contemporary world. In the diverse society we live in, morals are constantly changing,

and it is impossible for everyone to agree on an absolutist set of rules. However, the theory that

everyone wishes to be happy is more easily accepted. In this country, the laws reflect a

Utilitarian approach by making sure that society as a whole achieves the most possible

happiness. The pursuit of happiness is a provision that is integral to American society. The

downfall of utilitarianism has even been addressed with the theme of “majority rule with

minority rights.” Also in other settings, such as the workplace, compromise is a major factor in

making decisions. People use utilitarianism to come up with solutions that are acceptable to the

most people. Although it is not a perfect ethical guideline, Utilitarianism is a practical and

beneficial approach to moral issues.