chapter 2 review

After reading Chapter 2, I questioned which ethical theory (Kant’s or Mill’s) would make for a better societal order.

Mill believed in the theory of utilitarianism where everyone should act in such a way to bring the largest possible balance of good over evil for all of society. Kant has a different ethical theory. It is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. Actions of any sort must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and any action performed for expediency or solely to follow the law is regarded as not moral. Basically, a moral act is an act done for the right reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. (By reading Ch 2, you can further explain examine the differences between the two).
So the question is, which of the two theories would make a better societal order? That is a difficult question because both theories have flaws.

The reason that Kant’s theory would not make for a better societal order is because his rules are absolute and unyielding. Killing, for example, could never be justified; therefore it is wrong in each and every situation. There are never any extenuating circumstances, such as self-defense or punishment (death penalty). An act is either wrong or right, based on his universality law. The result would be a dogmatic government doling out Draconian punishments without considering the circumstances to what it deems a crime.

Mill’s theory also has problems. If properly followed, utilitarianism could lead to obviously wrong actions being considered right because the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the net consequences. Therefore, conceivably, it would morally okay for a very large and powerful country that had run out of food or natural resources for it’s 500 million citizens to overpower an island of 1000 people who had an overabundance of food and/or resources and steal from them. In stealing all their food, the larger nation is condemning all the inhabitants of this island to death. Is this right? Of course not. Yet under Mill's theory of consequences, since the greater good was served, then the act is morally okay. Mill's theories could also bring about unjust rules, if the rules served the greater majority. Suppose 3 legged people were not allowed to be seen in public (except in doctor's offices) because they made the greater majority feel inadequate and sick. Is this benefiting to the small number of three legged people? No it is not. However, to the greater majority it is beneficial. Machiavelli’s The Prince is a good illustration of this premise. According to Mill, the ends justify the means. Therefore, would all members of this society be safe and secure? Unlikely since there is always a minority.

So, perhaps the right question is, which of the two theories is the lesser of two evils? I would have to argue for Mill (that is, unless I was one of the 1000 on the island or a three legged person) - on a limited basis. Suppose I am a wealthy individual such as Bill Gates and I were pestered by someone asking me for money but who desperately needed it. If I gave a small amount of money to that person, Kant would judge it not moral because I did it for the wrong reason. Mill would examine the consequences of my giving money away. Did it hurt me? No. Did it help the stranger? Yes. Therefore, the net consequence is good. Whether or not I truly felt the act in my heart does not make it any less good than the person that gives his money away to charity because he feels so deeply about it. I also see cons to taking Mill's values on as societal ethics - they could conceivably give rise to the next Hitler. But with Kant, people would be prosecuted for EVERYTHING since there are no extenuating circumstances. Think of the court system - innocent men who had to protect their family and home alongside hardened criminals, both receiving the same sentence. In my personal opinion, Kant may go as far as to say to the starving nation, starve equally. And then, the nation slowly starves equally when they could have killed 1000 people to save themselves. Therefore, in my humble opinion, Mill's theories would make a better societal order.