The Sophist

Utilitarianism vs. Kant

An example that is often used to demonstrate the acceptability of a moral theory is the issue of world hunger. The
example does the following: either the theory says that it is not necessary to give up luxuries in order to solve
world hunger, or it says that one ought to sacrifice in order to help others. Whether or not the outcome is
"correct" is up to the questioner. In this paper, I will show that utilitarianism and Kantians provide the same
answer to this question, and why it makes good sense, both morally and pragmatically.

First, we must understand the principles behind these two theories. Utilitarians believe that a good action
promotes the general happiness. In other words, if the total amount of happiness caused by an action is
significantly greater than the amount lost, the action was good. Kant summed up his theory in two versions of the
Categorical Imperative. The first version states that you should "act only according to that maxim by which you
can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." The other version says, "act so that you treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only."[1] The
first version essentially states, "only do something if you think it would be good for everyone to do the same thing
all of the time." The second version means that you should act in a manner that treats others with respect, and
never simply to accomplish your own aims.

How would a utilitarian approach the issue of world hunger? On one hand, helping the needy would increase the
overall world happiness, but on the other hand, most people would have to completely deprive themselves in
order to make much of a difference. I feel that a true utilitarian would take a middle of the road approach. A
good, utilitarian answer would be, "help when you can, as much as you can, but remember to keep your own
happiness in mind." This answer accomplishes two things. First, it does increase the overall happiness, at a
minimal amount of deprivation for the donor.[2] And secondly, it is reasonable enough to make sure that it
happens. Any moral theory that makes individuals suffer for the benefit of many is not very useful in practice,
because few people will follow it. In the case of world hunger, pragmatism is actually more effective at solving
the problem than either selfishness or absolute charity.

A Kantian would come to the same conclusion, via either of the two versions of the Categorical Imperative. The
first version would advice pragmatism, because we would all like to be helped if we were needy, so we should
do the same for others. However, we would not like to be made to deprive ourselves completely simply because
others are suffering, so we should not expect others to do so as well. It is important to note the use of the word
"deprive" here, I will return to this topic later and the issue will become more clear. The second version would
recommend helping others, because by thinking solely of ourselves, we are not treating others with respect. In
the case of world hunger, we actually deprive others of their life through our own selfishness. On the other hand,
if the needy expected the better off to sacrifice their own happiness completely for their own sake, they would be
using the wealth of others simply as an end to their own means, without respecting the humanity of the better off.

There is further evidence for my claims as well, from the field of evolutionary game theory. Evolutionary game
theory uses iterated games in which success provides reproductive benefits, and failure leads to the extinction of
a species or sub-species. The iterated Prisoner's Dilemma illustrates the idea of world hunger very nicely. In this
game, there is a choice between cooperation with the other player, or non-cooperation. The scenario is as
follows:

"Two conspirators are apprehended by the police. Each is independently given the opportunity to keep silent
(Cooperate with the other prisoner) or to confess (Defect). If both turn State's evidence (Defect) they both go to
prison for five years; if both remain silent (Cooperate) the most the police can do is send them to jail for six
months for resisting arrest … If one defects while the other cooperates, the defector goes free while the
cooperator spends ten years in jail."[3]

Clearly, defection has the highest average payoff. However, if one creates a population of defectors and
cooperators, cooperators do remarkably well, once the population contains a high enough percentage of
cooperators.[4] Even more striking is what happens when we iterate the game to last one hundred rounds. If we
assign different strategies to each player, the players that have the highest total reward are those that do what
their opponent did the round before (a "tit for tat" strategy) that initially begins with cooperation. In a pairing
between two such players, both win out better than any other pairing.[5]

Another example of my own devising involves the concept of deprivation. Some may argue that deprivation is
any sort of loss, but quite frankly, this begs the question: "What is loss?" To a person who earns $40,000 a year,
one or two dollars is negligible. If this person were to misplace a few dollars from their wallet, we can be pretty
sure that they will not be upset about it. We cannot reasonably describe this person's loss of a small amount of
money as causing pain or suffering, so it does not make sense to label it "deprivation." Let us conceive of a
"Donor's Dilemma." A person is walking down the street and he encounters a beggar. This person may give
some sort of assistance to the beggar that will be of negligible value to himself, but of high importance to the
beggar. For example, he could buy the beggar a loaf of bread that will cost about $1.59, but will keep the
beggar from starving. Putting this into the Prisoner's Dilemma format, we have the following system: the donor
receives a reward of zero no matter what his actions. The beggar receives a reward only if the donor donates.
When seen from a non-iterated stance, there is no reason for the donor to donate. However, if we compare this
to a similar situation in which there is a chance that the favor may be repaid in iterated games, say, the loaning of
$5 between friends as opposed to the buying of a loaf of bread for a beggar, we can see how the "tit for tat"
strategy not only makes good "commonsense" sense, but is also compatible with Kantianism and Utilitarianism.

How is this applicable to our world hunger situation? The implications are incredible. By following a strategy of
gain for oneself (but only if one understands that the path to long-term happiness is paved with cooperation), the
overall benefit is maximized. In other words, self-concern leads to universal gain! The Kantian method of
decision-making leads to the realization of Utilitarian goals. To see how well this fits into our world hunger
scenario, we need to perform a small thought experiment. Although the nations that have many starving people
are quite poor, they still have value. For example, many African nations have mining, and others do have
successful agriculture systems. By keeping the citizens of those nations fed and healthy, we increase the
availability of those resources to the global market,[6] which lowers costs for everyone as well as preventing
regional monopolies. It is in the interests of even pure capitalists (who are often accused of heartlessness) to give
to charity.

Furthermore, there is the concept of tipping. Tipping is essentially a description of a feedback mechanism. For
example, all employees of a company are required to have (and pay for) insurance from the company's insurance
plan, because otherwise, the insurance would become more expensive, less people would purchase it, further
raising the price, and so forth, until no one would be able to purchase it. World hunger, I believe, involves the
tipping mechanism. As deprivation occurs, the number of consumers for goods goes up, because less people can
afford them, causing the price of goods to go up more. This is currently the case in the world. Because so few
people in the world can afford proper medical care, nutrition, housing, and other basic "standard of living" items,
the cost is higher, and only a small fraction of the people on the planet are able to have them.

My solution, therefore, can be summed up very easily: people should be charitable to the extent that they feel
comfortable doing so. In this manner, the rights of individuals are respected (satisfying Kantians), whereas the
global utility is increased (satisfying Utilitarians). By following this rule, we are able to meet the requirements of
both groups, while imposing upon neither. Therefore, we are able to achieve Utilitarian goals through Kantian
means. And, interestingly enough, Utilitarianism is a goal oriented philosophy, whereas Kantianism is a
methodological theory.

References
[1] The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels, p. 133

[2] See the later discussion of deprivation.

[3] Evolution of the Social Contract, Brian Skyrms, p. 49

[4] Skyrms, p. 57

[5] Lecture by Professor Martin Bunzl for Philosophy of Science, Spring 2000

[6] If the citizens of an area are unfit to work, we could pay a fee to allow our own laborers to do the work, but
by paying the fee we would be providing the owners of the resource with the same result had they produced it
themselves. The only way to access someone else's resources without due compensation is through charity or
theft, and the lesser in a relationship is in no position to give charity.

Home Page
Blog
Politics
Literature
Sartre's "The Flies"
Philosophy
Cartesian Scepticism
Nature of Natural
Aristotle: Politics as Science
Cartesian Dualism
Utilitarianism vs. Kant
Socratic vs. Platonic Justice
The Intentional Strategy
Platonic Forms
Platonic Justice
History
Fascism and War
Analysis of "The Manchurian Candidate"