Unit 3 Tutorials Examining Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology PDF

Unit 3 Tutorials: Examining Utilitarianism
and Kantian Deontology

INSIDE UNIT 3
Understanding Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
Commitments of Utilitarianism
Applying Utilitarianism
Act and Rule Utilitarianism
Hedonic and Idealist Utilitarianism
Evaluating Utilitarianism
Support for Utilitarianism
Problems with Utilitarianism
Advantages and Shortcomings of Utilitarianism
Understanding Kantian Deontology

Kantian Deontology
Commitments of Kantian Deontology
Applying Kantian Deontology

The Formulation of Universal Law
The Formulation of Humanity
Evaluating Kantian Deontology

Support for Kantian Deontology
Problems with Kantian Deontology
Advantages and Shortcomings of Kantian Deontology
Utilitarianism
by John Lumsden
© 2019 SOPHIA Learning, LLC. SOPHIA is a registered trademark of SOPHIA Learning, LLC. Page 1
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this tutorial we will begin looking at a specific ethical theory that bases right and wrong on the
outcomes of actions. We will look at some of the features of this ethical theory, specifically how it
approaches consequences. Our discussion will break down like this:
1. Introducing Utilitarianism
2. Predicting Consequences
3. Degrees of Utility
4. The Scope of Utility
1. Introducing Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is the name given to any ethical theory that says something is good if, overall, it brings about
utility. This idea, that the goodness of something depends on how much utility it brings about, is often called
the utility principle.
 TERM TO KNOW
Utilitarianism
A system of ethics that maintains that good is proportionate to total probable utility
There is a danger of thinking about utility in too narrow a sense. For instance, I can’t help but hear utility along
the lines of “utility belt” or something like that, where utility means useful for a job. But here utility just refers to
something that’s beneficial to us, or aids our well-being. You could say that something has utility if it makes us
happy; but happiness is understood in a broad way as well, to include anything from the comfort of a good
chair to the relief of knowing your family is safe.
 TERM TO KNOW
Utility
The increase or decrease in the total happiness consequent to an action
This way of thinking comes quite naturally to us most of the time. We often think that people should act in a
way that brings about the better outcome. You can even see this in the laws or policies that are established.
 EXAMPLE Some governments have passed policies to limit sugar in food so that there will be less
obesity. Cutting down the level of obesity in a population is seen as a good outcome, so the policy is seen
as good.
Utilitarianism holds that everyone ought to increase utility. But this doesn't mean everyone should act the
same. For instance, if I have lots of money, then I can increase utility by donating to charity. But if you don't,
then you could increase utility by volunteering at a homeless shelter. We would have different actions, but we
would be following the same ethical ideal. With this in mind, you can figure out what kind of ethical theory
utilitarianism is.
2. Predicting Consequences
For a Utilitarian, anything that affects consequences is ethically relevant. If you wanted to decide which action
is best, you would thus need to figure out which action would have the best possible outcome. This can be
difficult because our actions affect people in different ways.
 EXAMPLE If you gave money to a homeless person, you can’t be absolutely sure if this will bring
about happiness or not. For instance, maybe they use that money to buy a meal (a good consequence) or
maybe they waste it on a losing lottery ticket (not a good consequence).
People do not respond in the same way as things do. This is because, unlike mere things, humans make
decisions rather than being merely pushed around by various causes. For this reason we can't predict the way
humans will be affected by actions in the same way that we can predict the way things are affected by action.
Nevertheless, our experience of people can help us predict fairly well some of the consequences of our
actions.
 EXAMPLE Although charities sometimes suffer from problems such as inefficiency, we know that
giving to them will generally lead to good consequences, such as funding research into preventable
diseases or raising awareness of a neglected problem.
This shows that there is at least a rough guide available for your actions, even if you cannot predict with
absolute certainty what the consequences of your actions will be.
3. Degrees of Utility
So far we’ve said that utilitarianism determines the good as what brings about utility. But you need to keep in
mind that it isn’t simply about the presence or absence of utility. It is also about the degree or quantity of
utility.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you’re deciding on where to go on holiday. If you decided to go someplace where you
could also meet up with some old friends, this would bring about more happiness than if you didn’t.
Therefore, the utilitarian will say it’s good.
But if you decided to travel to a place that recently suffered a natural disaster and you volunteer to
help survivors, then this brings about even more utility. Therefore, for the utilitarian, this is a better
action.
As you can see, there are different degrees of goodness for the utilitarian. The same goes for badness.
 EXAMPLE Avoiding paying your taxes is bad because it reduces the utility experienced by your fellow
nationals through the reduction of funding to public services. But if you were a lawyer helping many
wealthy people avoid tax, this is worse. That’s because the reduction of revenue is much more severe.
4. The Scope of Utility

The last example we considered also shows that utilitarianism is concerned with the happiness of everyone,
not just the person acting. Not paying your taxes may make you happy, but it wouldn’t achieve happiness
overall. That’s because many people benefit from the services provided by taxation. Another example is using
your family’s savings to buy yourself a yacht. You may be happy, but the rest of your family probably won’t be.
 DID YOU KNOW
Although utilitarians say that you must consider the broader effect of your actions, there is still no agreement
about whether this should include the effect on animals as well.
As you may have guessed, a utilitarian is not just concerned with whether or not something has good
consequences. They are also concerned about the potential bad consequences. And most actions have both
good and bad consequences.
 EXAMPLE Imagine you manage to stop some racists assaulting a minority and they turn their hostility
towards you instead. The positive consequence would be that someone escaped violence, but the
negative consequence would be that you didn’t.
As we have seen, the utilitarian tries to get all the probable consequences in view when evaluating things.
They can do so by considering:
1. How much utility is produced and to what degree

2. How many people are affected
3. How likely utility is to come about
We’ve already spoken about the first two. For instance, we saw that a utilitarian can say that one action brings
about utility (visiting friends on holiday), while another brings about even more (volunteering to help people in
need during your holiday).
We also saw that a utilitarian can calculate which action brings about more utility by contrasting what makes
only you happy with what makes many people happy. The example about whether or not you pay taxes
showed this.
A utilitarian can think about the probability of a consequence. For instance, you’re more likely to get a decent
job if you finish school. Therefore, the utilitarian will say you probably ought to go to school to get that
probable utility. We could also predict other utilities further down the road, such as contributing to society
more generally.
SUMMARY

We started this tutorial by introducing utilitarianism, focusing on clarifying what the utility principle is.
Then we considered the difficulty of predicting consequences and saw how the utilitarian might
handle this.
The final two sections looked at the ways that utilitarianism can think about utility, including the
degrees of utility and the scope of utility. In the former we saw that consequences can bring about
more or less happiness, and in the latter we saw that the amount of people affected is factored in
utility, as well as the balance of good and bad consequences.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Utilitarianism
A system of ethics that maintains that good is proportionate to total probable utility
Utility
The increase or decrease in the total happiness consequent to an action
Commitments of Utilitarianism
by John Lumsden
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this tutorial we will focus on the types of evaluations of actions that a utilitarian will give. You will
also have a go at using this ethical theory by evaluating a situation yourself. Our discussion will break
down like this:
1. Review of Utilitarianism
2. Permissibility and Impermissibility in Utilitarianism
3. Types of Permissibility in Utilitarianism
4. Application of Utilitarianism
To begin with, recall that utilitarianism is the name given to any ethical theory that says something is good if,
overall, it brings about utility. If an action brings about utility, then we say that happiness or well-being is the
consequence of that action.
 HINT
When a utilitarian talks about happiness they aren’t simply talking about the good mood you get when you’re
doing something you enjoy. Happiness is understood in a very broad sense to include anything from the
comfort of a good chair to the relief of knowing your family is safe.
You also need to remember that a utilitarian isn’t just concerned to add up all the good consequences when
evaluating an action. They have a bigger picture in mind. They also calculate all the bad consequences as
well. This is so they can get a complete account of the utility that an action has by weighing up the good and
bad to see what the overall outcome is.
In the next section we will look at the various ways a utilitarian can evaluate actions. But before doing so, let’s
remind ourselves of the terms that ethical theorists use to evaluate actions.
Make sure you’re thinking about these evaluative terms when we go on to see utilitarianism in action in the
next section.
 BIG IDEA
In this section we reminded ourselves about utilitarianism. Here are the definitions again. Utilitarianism is a
system of ethics that maintains that good is proportionate to total probable utility. Utility is the increase or
decrease in the total happiness consequent to an action.
2. Permissibility and Impermissibility in

Utilitarianism
For a utilitarian, something is permissible if it doesn’t bring about an overall reduction in utility. Be careful
here, though. This doesn’t mean that an action isn’t allowed to bring about any reduction in utility. It only
means that there can’t be an overall reduction in utility.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you were just elected the leader of a country and you’re a utilitarian. You would need to
think about the overall outcome of your actions. Suppose you decide to take the land and buildings
of some millionaires to reuse for services for the poor.
Although there is a small loss of utility, this is more than made up for by the greater gain in overall
utility.
An act is only impermissible if there is an overall reduction in utility. For example, reconsider the above
situation, but this time imagine that you took the land and buildings for your own personal gain. Since you are
only one person, and the millionaires are more than one person, there is an overall reduction in utility. Thus
the utilitarian will say it’s wrong to do this.
3. Types of Permissibility in Utilitarianism

Now we will look at how a utilitarian would evaluate actions as either neutral, obligatory, or supererogatory.
First of all, let’s take the example of lying to find out what is obligatory for the utilitarian.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine your friend asks to hide in your house because there’s a crazy killer after them. If the killer
knocks on your door and asks if you’ve seen them, then you should lie and say no.
That’s because lying will bring about greater utility in this situation (a saved life is of greater utility
than being honest to someone). This action is obligatory for the utilitarian since you must do
something if it will bring about an increase in utility.
By contrast, lying would be neutral for the utilitarian if it didn’t either bring about an increase in utility nor a
decrease in utility.
 EXAMPLE If someone starts telling you a story they really like to tell, but you’ve heard it before, you
could not tell them you've not heard it before and let them carry on. You would have lied to them, but it
probably neither brings about an increase or decrease in utility. That’s because your mild discomfort in
hearing the story again is likely balanced out by their pleasure in telling the story.
Of course, it could be the case that your discomfort is greater than their pleasure. In which case, it would be
impermissible since there would be an overall reduction in utility. Weighing up pleasure and displeasure is
something the utilitarian must grapple with to make a decision here.
For a utilitarian, a supererogatory action is one that not only increases utility, but one that produces the most
utility possible. In other words, you would need to maximize utility.
 EXAMPLE If you volunteer once a week at a kitchen for the homeless, this increases utility. But if you
sacrificed all your spare time to do this kind of volunteer work, then you would be producing the most
utility you could. Therefore, this would be a supererogatory action.
4. Application of Utilitarianism
Now that you have seen how ethical evaluations can be based on consequences of actions, you can think
about using this in a specific situation. Consider the example below and think about how you would evaluate
each action if you were a utilitarian.
 TRY IT
Imagine you’re Superman. You use your superhuman gifts to help those in need. But one day massive
damage is done to your city because of your careless battling with an enemy. You feel guilty for your
negligence and quit your day job and all socializing in order to dedicate all your time to helping people.
The actions would have been evaluated in the following way:
1. The act of using your superhuman gifts to help others is obligatory since it increases overall utility.
2. The consequence of your battle produces a significant decrease in utility (e.g. civilian casualties) and
thus your way of going about fighting your enemy is impermissible.
3. The act of sacrificing all your time for helping others is supererogatory because it maximizes utility.
SUMMARY

We started this tutorial with a review of utilitarianism and the terms for evaluating actions. Then we
saw some examples of permissibility and impermissibility in utilitarianism, before looking in more
detail at the types of permissibility in utilitarianism , including examples of obligatory, neutral, and
supererogatory actions. Finally, an application of utilitarianism in a specific situation was considered,
and the evaluation of the various actions given.
by John Lumsden
WHAT'S COVERED

In this tutorial we will be thinking about how utilitarianism fits with our everyday views about what’s
right and wrong, before considering how utilitarianism evaluates certain issues in applied ethics. Our
discussion will break down like this:
2. Agreement with Everyday Morality
3. Disagreement with Everyday Morality
4. Some Uncertain Cases
5. Topics in Applied Ethics
overall, it brings about utility. If an action brings about utility, then we say that happiness or well-being is the
consequence of that action.
You also need to remember that a utilitarian isn’t just concerned with adding up all the good consequences
when evaluating an action. They also calculate all the bad consequences as well. This is so they can get a
complete account of the utility that an action has by weighing up the good and bad to see what the overall
outcome is.
You also need to keep in mind that it isn’t simply about the presence or absence of utility. The degree or
quantity of utility is important as well.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you’re deciding on where to go on holiday. If you decided to go someplace where you
could also meet up with some old friends, this would bring about more happiness than if you didn’t.
Therefore, the utilitarian will say it’s good.
But if you decided to travel to a place that recently suffered a natural disaster and you volunteer to
help survivors, then this brings about even more utility. Therefore, for the utilitarian, this is a better
action.
As you can see, there are different degrees of goodness for the utilitarian. The same goes for badness.
 EXAMPLE Avoiding paying your taxes is bad because it reduces the utility experienced by your fellow
nationals through the reduction of funding to public services. But if you were a lawyer helping many
wealthy people avoid tax, this is worse. That’s because the reduction of revenue is much more severe.

Sometimes our everyday understanding of what is right and wrong agrees with what brings about the greatest
utility. For instance, most of us think giving to charity is a good thing to do. As long as the charity is successful
at helping those in need, utilitarians will also say this is the right thing to do. There are many other similar
cases.
 EXAMPLE Many people think that we should buy things responsibly. For instance, we should buy our
coffee or bananas from producers that give a fair wage to the people that harvest these products and
make sure that their working conditions aren’t dangerous.
Assuming the workers' happiness outweighs the consumers' inconvenience, the utilitarian will agree that this
is the right thing to do.

There are plenty of cases, however, where utilitarianism says we ought to do things that seem clearly wrong
to us. Many of these cases involve intentionally harming someone for the benefit of others.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you go into hospital for a routine check-up. As you’re waiting for your doctor, several people
are admitted due to a big car crash. All of them need organs to survive: heart, lungs, liver, etc. There
are no organs available for them.
Assuming that saving several lives has greater utility than keeping one person alive, the utilitarian
will say that the doctor was right to do what she did.
Most of us would find the doctor’s actions horrific because it goes against our sense of justice. You can think
of many similar cases where inflicting harm produces more utility, but at the cost of violating people's rights.
 EXAMPLE Imagine a government of a poor country forcefully sterilizes its citizens so that there will be
less hunger, disease, and pain through overcrowding.
If this action brings about an overall rise in utility, then the utilitarian will say the government behaved
ethically. But taking away people's right to have children without their knowledge or consent seems clearly
unethical.
Sometimes it is not clear whether or not our everyday moral views fit with utilitarianism. That’s because a
utilitarian can’t always give us clear evaluations of actions due to the difficulty of weighing up utility in different
cases.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you have absolutely nothing but mounting debt.
It’s uncertain whether the utilitarian will say it’s good or bad. That’s because it seems the overall
utility stays the same after the identity theft: a wealthy person is now poor, and a poor person is now
wealthy.
You find a similar problem when you’re faced with the choice between two kinds of happiness. It can be
unclear which you should go for since they seem to both have utility.
 EXAMPLE Imagine you get a lot of pleasure out of eating unhealthy food, but you also want to live a
long and healthy life.
It’s not clear on the utilitarian account whether the short-term pleasure is better than the long-term benefits.

Philosophers working in ethics often try to apply ethical theories to specific situations. Let’s consider how a
utilitarian might apply their ethics to the following issues.
1. The moral permissibility of suicide

2. The moral permissibility of abortion
3. The moral permissibility of war
Here are the positions that utilitarian theorists take on these issues.
Utilitarianism and Applied Ethics
Suicide If there are no benefits of living, only suffering, a utilitarian would say
suicide is right because it would increase overall utility.
Abortion If it would result in more happiness for the mother than the potential
happiness of the fetus, then it's right. If not, then it's wrong.
War If the suffering and death of soldiers and civilians isn't outweighed by the
positive outcomes, then it's wrong. If not, then it's right.
If you disagree with these ethical judgments, then you may not think utilitarianism is the best ethical
framework for judging which actions are right and wrong.
SUMMARY

We started this tutorial with a review of utilitarianism, focusing on the whole picture of utility when
evaluating actions. Then we looked at the ways utilitarianism can be in agreement with everyday
morality, and how it can be in disagreement with everyday morality. We saw how calculating utility
makes sense in some situations, but goes against our sense of justice in others.
Then we looked at some uncertain cases where it was not clear whether there was complete
agreement between the utilitarian's judgments and our usual ethical judgments. Finally, some topics
in applied ethics were considered from the perspective of utilitarianism.
Source: Organ images (modified), public domain, http://bit.ly/2bTAMxT; ID card image, public domain,
http://bit.ly/2bTFyf8
Act and Rule Utilitarianism
by John Lumsden
WHAT'S COVERED

In this tutorial we will look at two different ways to figure out how to increase utility. We will also
consider the reasons for taking up one method or the other. Our discussion will break down like this:
1. Act and Rule Utilitarianism
2. Advantages and Disadvantages
1. Act and Rule Utilitarianism

overall, it brings about utility. This is referred to as the utility principle. The utility principle can be used in
different ways. The kind of utilitarian you are depends on how you use this principle.
You should be careful here with the term “rule.” You might think of it as something like a law. But here we’re
using it to mean something more like a guide for action. If you find yourself in a certain situation, you can turn
to the rule to help you decide what action you ought to take.
 EXAMPLE Consider these two rules: “if you have excess income, you should give it to charity”; “when
at work, be nice to your colleagues.”
Most of the time act utilitarians agree with rule utilitarians. But this depends on the specific nature of a
situation.
You can think of many other cases where an action usually does more harm than good, but the balance
changes under different circumstances.
 EXAMPLE Both types of utilitarian will agree that it’s bad to intentionally give a stranger wrong
directions. But if you gave the wrong directions because you knew they were going to hurt someone at
their destination, there would be disagreement. That’s because the act utilitarian sees the benefits
outweigh the harms in this instance: the benefit of saving someone from injury is greater than the harm of
lying to someone.
By contrast, the rule utilitarian would stick to their evaluation because they opposed this action on the basis of
the rule that lying is wrong.
2. Advantages and Disadvantages

Act and rule utilitarianism have different strengths. As you probably already guessed, the strength of act
utilitarianism is that it’s more adaptable. Think back to the example of damaging property. If you hold onto the
prohibition on damaging property no matter what, then you could overlook the utility it provides under certain
circumstances. It makes sense that we should say that it’s good to break into an empty building when it
means saving yourself from sleeping on the street.
The strengths of rule utilitarianism might not be so obvious. But if you think about how difficult it can be to
calculate consequences, then you’ll see its advantages.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you’re walking along a bridge and you see someone is preparing to jump. If you decided to
try to talk the person down off the ledge, you could be following the rule “save life when doing so
doesn’t put your own life in danger”.
In this situation, it doesn't seem appropriate to take your time, calculating all the potential benefits
and harms of whichever course of action you take. Think about it; while you're there tallying up
consequences, the person could've jumped already!
As you can see, following a rule like this makes sense practically. Sometimes you don’t have the time to try to
calculate all the possible consequences of an action.
Moreover, if you had already done research about suicide, you would probably find information to support this
rule. For instance, that most saved people are grateful and go on to have a life with many benefits. Figuring
out a rule in advance can thus be very helpful for increasing utility.
SUMMARY

We started this tutorial by distinguishing act and rule utilitarianism, highlighting that both aim to
increase utility, but do so in different ways. We also saw that, although they often come up with the
same ethical judgments, they differ under certain circumstances.
Finally, we looked at the advantages and disadvantages of both positions. Although act utilitarianism
is more flexible, rule utilitarianism can be more accurate and practical under certain circumstances.
Source: Brick image (modified), public domain, http://bit.ly/2c0Xmrk
Hedonic and Idealist Utilitarianism
by John Lumsden
WHAT'S COVERED

In this tutorial we will look at two different ways the utilitarian can think about the pleasures they
consider in their calculations of utility. Our discussion will break down like this:
1. Introducing Hedonic and Idealist Utilitarianism
2. Higher and Lower Pleasures
1. Introducing Hedonic and Idealist Utilitarianism

overall, it brings about utility. This is referred to as the utility principle. Now, the utility principle can be used in
different ways. The kind of utilitarian you are depends on how you use this principle.
It might seem natural for a utilitarian to be hedonic. That’s because, if you set out to increase happiness, then
you probably assume that all things can be measured in terms of happiness.
 EXAMPLE If you’re a utilitarian trying to decide whether to go out drinking or studying tonight, your
job is going to be a lot easier if you can measure them along the same scale—say, the scale of how much
pleasure they bring.
But an idealist utilitarian will say that these things can’t be so easily compared. That’s because studying
provides a different kind of utility than does the pleasure that comes from going out drinking. The same could
be said of, for instance, the type of pleasure that comes from having a meaningful conversation with a friend,
and the type of pleasure that comes from the comfort of a good bed.
But this doesn’t mean that only things that are exactly the same can be compared on the same scale.
 EXAMPLE Getting a massage and eating ice cream are different, but they are directly comparable
because they both bring sensual pleasure.
Now, both the hedonic and idealist utilitarian can agree on an evaluation in this instance. If getting a massage
brings about greater happiness, then they will both say that you should get a massage. But things get a little
more complicated when we try to take into account other kinds of utility.
2. Higher and Lower Pleasures

The idealist utilitarian says that there are some goods that are of higher value than others. For instance, the
good that comes from pursuing truth for its own sake is a higher pleasure, whereas the good that comes from
enjoying tasty food is a lower pleasure.
Pursuing truth doesn’t have the same enjoyment that we get immediately from eating good food. For this
reason, a hedonic utilitarian may choose the latter over the former. But the idealist utilitarian sees the value in
knowledge above and beyond the sensations we get from it.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you’re staying in tonight and deciding which movie you want to watch. You feel like just
watching something easy and comforting, so you’re tempted by that comedy you’ve seen a dozen
or more times before.
But you can’t help thinking you really should watch that difficult foreign movie that’s supposed to be
intellectually challenging and rewarding.
You might have more fun watching the comedy, but the intellectual stimulation from the other movie is of a
higher type.
This last example shows that two things might seem the same (i.e. two movies), but can still belong to very
different scales of utility (i.e. to lower or higher pleasures) because one is closer to mere entertainment, the
other to artistic or aesthetic experience.
SUMMARY

We started this tutorial by introducing hedonic and idealist utilitarianism. We saw that they both share
the aim of increasing utility, but that they understand utility in different ways. Hedonic utilitarianism
sees everything as belonging to one scale of pleasure, whereas idealist utilitarianism sees things as
belonging to two different scales of pleasure. We then looked in more detail at these two different
scales in terms of higher and lower pleasures, focusing on different examples of each.
Support for Utilitarianism
by John Lumsden
WHAT'S COVERED

In this tutorial we will look at some of the features of utilitarianism that might make it an attractive
ethical theory. Our discussion will break down like this:
1. Utilitarianism and the Group
2. Further Support for Utilitarianism
1. Utilitarianism and the Group

overall, it brings about utility. This is referred to as the utility principle.
One reason utilitarianism is an attractive ethical theory is that it fits with our common view that ethics should
be about the group, not just the individual. That’s because calculating the overall utility of an action or rule
must include the consequences on other people as much as ourselves.
 EXAMPLE Most people that use a library would be pretty annoyed if the book they checked out had
pages torn out of it. And we would feel that we’ve done something wrong if we had done this ourselves.
The utilitarian backs this up. If a library book is damaged, the utility it can have has been drastically reduced
since no more people can get pleasure out of it.
Utilitarianism shows a concern for other people, in future times, as well. In other words, it gives us ethical
reasons to care about the generations that follow from us, and the fate of humanity more generally. That’s
because the consequences of our actions can greatly affect the future.
 EXAMPLE Imagine you decide to plant an apple orchard, even though you know you won’t live to see
it come to fruition. Future generations will still be able to enjoy it, and so your actions would have brought
about a rise in utility.
You can extend this idea to think about the environment more generally. If our actions damage the conditions
of human life (e.g. clean air, water, etc.), a utilitarian would say it’s wrong.
 BIG IDEA
As you can see, thinking about other people is central to utilitarianism and therefore it's successful at
addressing some of our ethical concerns about the group.
2. Further Support for Utilitarianism

Since utilitarianism says the goodness of something comes down to its consequences, it needs to be fairly
good at predicting consequences if it wants to guide action. It does this by looking at as much information as
possible; not just whatever is at hand.
For this reason, utilitarianism has some similarities to science. As you know, science puts a lot of emphasis on
observation for providing explanations or predictions of how things work. Although you can’t be as accurate
at predicting the effects of human action as you can when predicting how physical things work, they’re still
both informed by empirical research. Many people are attracted to utilitarianism because of this fact.
You might also think utilitarianism has something going for it because we use its methods in other areas of
our lives. For instance, we make some laws based on how much utility they give us.
 EXAMPLE Obeying certain traffic laws, such as waiting at a red light, ensures that people don’t get
injured or their cars damaged.
There are many other examples like this. For instance, there are laws in place to make sure that divorces are
fair to both parties. The laws here aim to have the greatest utility.
Despite the similarity between utilitarianism and civil law, you should be careful not to confuse them.
Utilitarianism isn’t meant to be a legal system. It just so happens that legal systems often use similar tools as
does this particular ethical system.
 BIG IDEA
If you think an ethics is made stronger by sharing some features with other practices (such as science and civil
law), then utilitarianism might be for you.
SUMMARY

We started this tutorial by looking at utilitarianism and the group, focusing on the ability of
utilitarianism to speak to our inclination to care about the fate of other people, including future
generations. Then we saw some further support for utilitarianism. In particular, we saw that it shares
some aspects with other areas of our lives, namely science and civil law.
Problems with Utilitarianism
by John Lumsden
WHAT'S COVERED

In this tutorial we will look at some of the potential drawbacks of utilitarianism, focusing on its inability
to accommodate some of our basic ethical ideas. Our discussion will break down like this:
1. Intentions and Actions
2. Calculating Consequences
1. Intentions and Actions

overall, it brings about utility (in other words, well-being or happiness). This is referred to as the utility principle.
Because of its focus on outcomes or consequences, utilitarianism doesn’t really care about people’s
intentions. Utilitarianism seems to lose sight of a very important aspect of our ethical experience. We usually
care a great deal about people’s intentions.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Wouldn’t you want to be able to say that someone’s cruel actions are bad, even if the outcome was good?
But as long as the consequences of their actions bring about utility, then the utilitarian is stuck with having to
say what they did was good.
 EXAMPLE If someone set out to exterminate a whole people with a biological weapon, the only
reasonable ethical evaluation is to say this action is bad. But if this weapon accidentally cured a
widespread disease (instead of killing, as was intended), then the utilitarian would have to say it was good.
It doesn’t make sense to approve of these actions. Of course, we can be grateful for the happy accident. But
we still want to say that ethics should have a way of saying that these actions are bad, even if they
accidentally brought about something good.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you and your colleague are pilots. You are a conscientious and responsible pilot; she is a
reckless and homicidal pilot. Due to terrible weather conditions and mechanical faults, you crash and
passengers die. Your colleague tries to crash the plane on purpose, but accidentally lands safely and
actually saves the life of a passenger having a heart attack by getting them closer to the medical
assistance they need.
Now, the utilitarian would have to say that your action was bad because it had bad consequences;
and say that your colleague's action was good because it had good consequences.
For most of us, we would want to be able to say that there are ethical reasons to prefer your actions over your
colleague’s. But the utilitarian can’t provide these reasons.
It isn’t just the difference between good and bad intentions that utilitarianism struggles with. It also seems to
give us strange ethical evaluations when people aren’t intentionally doing anything in particular.
 EXAMPLE You’re reading or listening to this tutorial now. If you were out volunteering for charity
instead, you might save lives. You’re not intending to allow death while studying at this moment. But if you
could’ve saved lives, then the utilitarian would have to hold you responsible anyway.
To be held responsible for the consequences of things you didn’t do is counterintuitive. For instance, if you
didn’t lock your car and a thief who steals it crashes and dies, then the utilitarian would say your lack of action
(failing to lock your car) brought about bad consequences. Therefore, they would hold you responsible. This
clearly doesn't seem right to most of us.
2. Calculating Consequences
A problem that utilitarianism faces is that it can be very difficult to calculate the consequences of actions. And
without a definitive calculation of the goodness or badness of consequences, utilitarianism seems to be
unable to make ethical judgments of good and bad.
 EXAMPLE When you’re trying to decide what career path to take, how can you be sure the one you
choose will provide the most utility? You might have a good idea about which one you will enjoy more. But
perhaps you’re fired because your industry moves to another country. Or maybe your industry actually
contributes to the exploitation and misery of other people.
Unless you’re psychic or clairvoyant, there’s no way you can predict all possible outcomes. And the more
complicated the world gets, the more difficult it is to predict the effects of your actions. The food you buy
could contribute to the exploitation of workers on the other side of the world without you knowing about it.
There are other problems with the focus on consequences as well. The utilitarian doesn’t care about whether
the consequences are specifically good for you, or for someone else. All that matters for them is that the
amount of utility overall is higher. This seems strange because it ignores our justifiable inclination to care more
about ourselves or loved ones than strangers.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you’re on the Titanic just before it hits the iceberg. Your family are on the other side of the
ship when you realize it’s sinking. The utilitarian would say that you should make sure as many
people make it onto lifeboats as possible.
This would mean that you shouldn’t try to go find your family because it would waste time you could
be using to save the people that are nearer you.
Most of us wouldn’t blame someone for prioritizing their family in this situation. Something similar can be said
about securing your own happiness.
 EXAMPLE If you can increase happiness more by volunteering every spare moment you have, then
the utilitarian will say you should do it.
We tend to think that only saints or martyrs need to go to this length to secure overall happiness. It seems
unreasonable to expect that everyone must do this.
 SUMMARY
We started this tutorial by looking at the way utilitarianism deals with intentions and actions in its
ethical judgments. Since the utility of consequences can be judged without reference to intention,
utilitarianism can ignore them. But this leads to various counterintuitive results.
We also saw some of the problems involved in calculating consequences. In particular, the difficulty
of predicting consequences was seen to undermine the goal of increasing utility. Finally, we saw that
utilitarianism forces us to make strangers’ happiness as important as our own.
Advantages and Shortcomings of Utilitarianism
by John Lumsden
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this tutorial we will see some reasons for and against utilitarianism, focusing on whether or not its
ethical evaluations make sense to most people. Our discussion will break down like this:
2. Intuitiveness of Utilitarianism
overall, it brings about utility (in other words, well-being or happiness). This is referred to as the utility principle.
There are many potential advantages of utilitarianism. Firstly, it is especially well equipped to avoid bias in
ethical evaluation. If you consistently apply the utility principle, then you won't privilege your own minimal
enjoyment over the greater benefit that someone else could receive.
 EXAMPLE You wouldn’t keep an extra seat on the train just so you can have your bag next to you, if
there was a person with a cane in need of a seat.
The calculation of consequences also brings utilitarianism close to the scientific investigation into things. Both
make observation and prediction central to their practice.
But there are many disadvantages too. One problem of basing ethics in calculating consequences is that we
can’t predict all the potential outcomes of human actions in the same way that we can predict the effects of
physical things.
 HINT
If we could accurately predict the ultimate outcome of human actions, then we could predict the future in the
way that scientists predict the movements of nature.
But if you can’t know whether the consequences of your action will ultimately be good or bad, then it seems
that you can’t guide your action with the utility principle.
 THINK ABOUT IT
If you’re supposed to choose the action that brings about the most utility, how could you make a decision
without knowing all the future results of your actions?
It’s a lot to ask someone to try to calculate all consequences. Plus, the burden of weighing up all
consequences can mean that you have to take other people’s happiness as seriously as your own. This is a
tall order for our daily lives. Moreover, utilitarianism makes us responsible for the things we don’t do as much
as the things we actually do.
2. Intuitiveness of Utilitarianism
As we have seen, utilitarianism provides ethical evaluations that sometimes make sense to us, but sometimes
don’t. In other words, it can give us both intuitive and counterintuitive results.
One of the reasons utilitarianism is sometimes intuitive is that it appeals to our sense that the effect of our
actions on other people matters.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you’re driving around trying to find a parking spot. You come across three spaces together,
but you’re feeling too lazy to park properly in one spot. You park sloppily, taking up all three spaces.
Most people would think this is completely unjustified. The utilitarian would agree, arguing that the
utility for three people to park their car outweighs your convenience.
One of the reasons utilitarianism is sometimes counterintuitive is that the emphasis on consequences means
intentions are left out of the picture. If someone has bad intentions, but accidentally brings about utility, then
the utilitarian will have to say they are good. This doesn’t make much sense to most of us.
 EXAMPLE Imagine a serial killer didn’t realize that their latest victim was about to become a war
criminal. The serial killer didn’t do it to save thousands of lives; only for their own pleasure.
We may be grateful for the accidental result, but we don’t want to say the serial killer’s action itself was good.
SUMMARY

We started this tutorial with a review of utilitarianism, reminding ourselves of some of the strengths
and weakness of this ethical position. In particular, we saw that the utility principle fits with our
concern for the welfare of other people, but that calculating consequences can often be too
demanding. Then, we looked at the intuitiveness of utilitarianism. We saw, through specific examples,
how utilitarianism can produce intuitive and counterintuitive results.
Kantian Deontology
by John Lumsden
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this tutorial we will begin our exploration of another ethical theory, Kantian deontology. Some of the
distinctive features of this position will be presented, as well as some of its core concepts. Our
1. Introducing Deontology
2. Kantian Deontology and Intentions
3. Kantian Deontology and Pure Reason
4. The Categorical Imperative
1. Introducing Deontology
Ethics can evaluate actions in lots of different ways. One way is to say that an action is good if its outcome is
desirable and bad if its outcome is undesirable. Utilitarians think this is the way we should do it. Deontologist
disagree.
They think we should evaluate an action by whether or not it meets a certain standard or norm. In other
words, it says there are some things that are simply right to do (and some that are simply wrong to do), no
matter what happens after that.
 TERM TO KNOW
Deontology
A family of ethical theories that maintains that the value of the action is determined by something intrinsic to
the act itself
When we do something just because it’s the right thing to do, we often say we are doing our duty. There is a
standard, code, or law we feel we need to live up to, in order to be good people. This way of thinking about
ethics is already contained in the word deontology itself. That's because it derives from the Greek terms deon
(meaning duty) and logos (meaning study or account of). Literally then, deontology means the study of duty.
2. Kantian Deontology and Intentions

There are many different versions of deontology, but the most influential is the one proposed by one of the
most important German philosophers, Immanuel Kant.
Not only does Kant think that the consequences of an action don’t tell us about its moral worth, he thinks that,
even if we fail to do the right thing, we are still good, as long as we intended to do the right thing.
 EXAMPLE Imagine you borrow my copy of Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, with
every intention of returning it as I gave it to you. But as you’re on your way to give it back to me, some
philosophical fanatic mugs you. I’ve lost out on my book, but your moral worth is still the same.
As you can see, even if things turn out badly, it’s your intentions that matter. But you should be careful here.
This doesn’t mean you can just have good intentions without trying to actually act on those intentions. As Kant
puts it, your intention can’t be a “mere wish”; you need to undertake the “greatest efforts” to bring your
intentions about. In the above example, you really did try to give my book back; you failed through no fault of
your own.
 TERM TO KNOW
Kantian Deontology
A form of deontology that places absolute moral value in the agent's intent
3. Kantian Deontology and Pure Reason

Kant argued that pure reason is the best guide for finding out what’s right. It’s pure because it isn’t mixed with
anything that’s specific to particular people.
 HINT
If pure reason were something like a special ability, then it would be dependent on circumstances (e.g. on
natural talents or expensive education). But Kant claims we can all hear pure reason’s demands—even if we
don’t always listen to them.
If you think back to the two main types of ethical theory, you can probably guess which Kant’s belongs to.
4. The Categorical Imperative

Kant refers to pure reason’s demands as the moral law. We know that the demands or imperatives that come
from this law can’t be based on any particular person’s desires or circumstances. In other words, the
imperative can’t be qualified or conditioned by anything. An imperative of this kind is called categorical.
 TERM TO KNOW
Categorical Imperative
A concept in Kantian deontology that fulfills the role of a moral law that is binding on all people in all
circumstances
If you obey the moral law by willing to do the right thing, then it doesn’t matter what the consequences are.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you have a child who shows an interest in myths and history. You decide that you should
encourage your child’s interests and their intellectual development (e.g. reading skills, broadening
knowledge, etc).
This could have good or bad consequences. On the one hand, your child might grow up to be an
accomplished and respected expert in a field they love. On the other hand, they might grow to hate
this and wish they had spent their time learning a more practical skill.
However it turns out, your action is still good since it was motivated by respect for the moral law. That is, you
did it because encouraging your child to develop their skills in itself good. In other words, it’s inherently or
intrinsically good.
 SUMMARY
We started this tutorial by introducing deontology as a family of ethical theories that values the
goodness of an act over the goodness of the results of that act. Then we looked at Kantian
deontology and intentions, focusing on how this version of deontology makes your will or intention
central to ethical evaluation.
Then the relationship between Kantian deontology and pure reason was shown to establish the
universality of the moral law and therefore make Kant’s ethics objectivist. Finally, we saw that Kant
calls this moral law the categorical imperative because it’s a demand to act morally without any
exception.
TERMS TO KNOW

Categorical Imperative
A concept in Kantian Deontology that fulfills the role of a moral law that is binding on all people in all
circumstances.
Deontology
A family of ethical theories that maintains that the value of the action is determined by something
intrinsic to the act itself
Kantian Deontology
A form of Deontology that places absolute moral value in the agent's intent
Commitments of Kantian Deontology
by John Lumsden
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this tutorial we will see how a Kantian deontologist goes about evaluating actions by testing the
reasons that motivate our action. Our discussion will break down like this:
1. Review of Kantian Deontology
2. Formulations of the Categorical Imperative

To begin with, recall that Kantian deontology is a form of deontology that places absolute moral value in the
agent’s intent. Like any ethical theory, you can use this to evaluate actions as either permissible or
impermissible. In other words, actions that you’re allowed to do and ones that you aren’t.
For Kantian deontology, an action is permissible if it doesn’t violate the categorical imperative, and
impermissible if it does violate the categorical imperative.
You might be asking: what does it mean to violate the categorical imperative? First of all, recall that the
categorical imperative is the law that gives us reason to act morally under any circumstance, no matter who
you are. Violating the categorical imperative, then, means failing to will or intend this universal law.
2. Formulations of the Categorical Imperative

It might not be clear how you could find out whether or not your action violates the categorical imperative.
After all, how can you tell if what you intended is merely due to your particular desires, or if it comes from
universal reason?
To help us get a better grasp on the categorical imperative, Kant expressed or formulated it in different ways.
 TERM TO KNOW
Formulation
A test of the permissibility of an action by determining whether it is consistent with upholding the categorical
imperative
Kant offers several different formulations of the categorical imperative, but one is the formula of universal law
and another is the formula of humanity. Both can be used to test whether or not your reasons for acting in a
certain way stick to the categorical imperative. We will look at these in more detail in other tutorials. For now,
we can briefly sketch their meanings.
In short, the formulation of universal law says that your action is permissible if the reason for the action is one
that everyone could find to be a good reason. The formulation of humanity says your action is permissible as
long as you don’t disrespect those things that make us truly human (as opposed to being merely animals),
such as our freedom.
SUMMARY

We started this tutorial with a review of Kantian deontology, focusing on what standards this ethical
position uses to evaluate actions. The standard is provided by the categorical imperative. We then
looked at how you might actually go about doing this by using the formulations of the categorical
imperative. These are tests or guides to help you figure out whether you’ve willed or intended the
right thing.
The Formulation of Universal Law
by John Lumsden
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this tutorial we will see what a maxim is, and how to evaluate it using a test derived from one of
Kant’s formulations of the categorical imperative. Our discussion will break down like this:
1. Evaluation of Maxims
2. The Formulation of Universal Law
3. The Formulation of Universal Law in Practice
agent’s intent. It doesn’t matter whether or not you succeed in bringing about what you intended.
Kant argued that an intention isn’t just any decision you make to do something. For Kant, intentions only move
you to act in a certain way if they can be expressed as a kind of direction or command you give to yourself.
Consider these examples.
If you carry out a maxim, then you’ve realized it in an act. Since Kant doesn’t think morality depends on
whether or not you achieve your purpose, he doesn’t evaluate the action. Instead, it’s the maxim that’s to be
evaluated.
 TERM TO KNOW
Maxim
The situation-specific principle of action that an agent upholds by acting in that way
To evaluate a maxim you need to see how it fits with the categorical imperative. If it violates the categorical
imperative, it’s impermissible (i.e. it’s wrong to do); if it doesn’t, then it’s permissible (i.e. it isn’t wrong to do).
2. The Formulation of Universal Law

The idea of a categorical imperative is quite difficult to grasp. It’s fairly easy to think about a law or rule that
applies to specific people.
 EXAMPLE You know that a driver should follow the rules of the road, or that doctors should obey the
command to help the sick (they should uphold the Hippocratic Oath).
But what does a demand or imperative look like when it’s not relative to the person following it? In other
words, what are the rules or laws that everyone should be following?
Kant was aware of this difficulty, so he gave different formulations of the categorical imperative to make it
easier to understand. One of them is called the formulation of universal law. In short, it says you ought to act
according to a maxim that everyone could use. If you want to put your maxim to the test, then you should see
if it could be made universal like this.
 STEP BY STEP
The problem that you might run into is called a “contradiction” by Kant. In the next section we will see more
clearly what this means through some examples. For now, we can say that you run into contradiction if you
aim at one thing with your maxim, but end up with the opposite of what you intended once the maxim is made
to apply to everyone.
3. The Formulation of Universal Law in Practice

Let’s look at a case where you would run into contradiction if you were to make your maxim universal. Pay
attention to the fact that this test is trying to show if a maxim makes sense when it’s made universal. It’s not
trying to evaluate the consequences of making a maxim universal.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine your maxim is: “When I’m losing a game of chutes and ladders I will cheat to win.” If this
were universal, it wouldn’t just be you that could cheat when losing, but everyone.
But if there were no rules for chutes and ladders, how would you know when someone has won?
So, if everyone intends to cheat, there wouldn’t be any rules in effect anymore. Without any rules
there can’t be winners, thereby undermining your intention of winning by cheating.
Kant calls this undermining of your maxim a contradiction. That’s because making the maxim universal
contradicts the intention of the maxim in the first place. In this case, the universalization of the maxim makes
winning chutes and ladders impossible. And this contradicts your intention to win chutes and ladders through
cheating.
Since you can’t make your maxim universal without contradicting yourself, it fails the universalization test. If
you try to get out of this by making yourself an exception (i.e. that only you can cheat), then your maxim is no
longer universal. And so it fails the universalizability test. By failing the test, this maxim violates the categorical
imperative. Therefore, it’s impermissible.
 HINT
Remember that consequences are unimportant for deontological ethics. The universalization test doesn’t say
that everyone cheating is bad because we wouldn’t like a world where this happened. It’s saying that it’s not
even possible for everyone to cheat because this would undermine the very idea of playing a game with
winners in the first place.
As long as you can universalize your maxim without a contradiction such as this, then it’s permissible.
 EXAMPLE Let’s say your maxim is: “If I borrow your book, I will keep my promise to return it.”
If everyone did this, would there be any contradiction? No, because the practice of lending would still be
possible since people could be confident that they would get their things back. Therefore, you could will your
maxim to be universal and still successfully act according to this maxim yourself.
SUMMARY

We started this tutorial by seeing that Kantian deontologists perform an evaluation of maxims rather
than actions or their consequences. It was explained that a maxim is the principle of action that you
use in certain situations.
Then we looked at how you can tell whether or not your maxim accords with the categorical
imperative by testing it against the formulation of universal law. We saw that, if your maxim
undermines its own aim when universalized, it fails the test. This shows that it violates the categorical
imperative and is therefore impermissible. Finally, we looked at the formulation of universal law in
practice by testing two maxims, one of which was permissible, the other impermissible.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Maxim
The situation-specific principle of an action that an agent upholds by acting in that way
The Formulation of Humanity
by John Lumsden
WHAT'S COVERED

In this tutorial we will see what a maxim is, and see how to evaluate it using a test derived from one of
Kant’s formulations of the categorical imperative. Our discussion will break down like this:
2. The Formulation of Humanity
3. The Absolute Value of Humanity
4. The Formulation of Humanity in Practice
agent's intent. It doesn’t matter whether or not you succeed in bringing about what you intended.
Kant argued that an intention isn’t just any decision you make to do something. For Kant, intentions only move
you to act in a certain way if they can be expressed as a kind of direction or command you give to yourself.
Consider these examples.
If you carry out a maxim, then you've realized it in an act. Since Kant doesn’t think morality depends on
whether or not you achieve your purpose, he doesn’t evaluate the action. Instead, it’s the maxim that’s to be
evaluated.
 TERM TO KNOW
Maxim
The situation-specific principle of action that an agent upholds by acting in that way
To evaluate a maxim you need to see how it fits with the categorical imperative. If it violates the categorical
imperative it’s impermissible (i.e. it’s wrong to do); if it doesn’t then it’s permissible (i.e. it isn’t wrong to do).
2. The Formulation of Humanity

The idea of a categorical imperative is quite difficult to grasp. It’s fairly easy to think about a law or rule that
applies to specific people.
 EXAMPLE You know that a driver should follow the rules of the road, or that a doctor should obey the
command to help the sick (they should uphold the Hippocratic Oath).
But what does a demand or imperative look like when it’s not relative to the person following it? In other
words, what are the rules or laws that everyone should be following?
Kant was aware of this difficulty, so he gave different formulations of the categorical imperative to make it
easier to understand. One of the formulations is called the formulation of humanity. In short, it says you should
always respect people’s humanity (including your own) when you make use of people for some purpose.
 HINT
By humanity Kant means those features that make us ethical agents; for instance, that we can use our rational
capacities to determine goals and that we have the freedom necessary to pursue these goals.
In order to get a better idea of what this means, let’s look at an example ofnot respecting humanity.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you have a friend called Habib, and you want to persuade him to not be friends with Olivia.
You make up some reasons why Olivia wouldn’t be a good friend (e.g. she’s always running late).
If you succeed in making Habib not want to be friends with Olivia, then you would have abused his
rationality by fooling him, so you can get him to do what you want.
In this example you would have deprived your friend of the opportunity to use his capacity to make a decision
for himself. But if the reasons you gave were actually true, then you would be helping him to make an
informed decision. You would still be using him as a means to your end (e.g. of making sure he doesn’t
become friends with Olivia), but you would be respecting his humanity at the same time.
3. The Absolute Value of Humanity

You might be wondering: is humanity really so important? Kant says it is because it’s needed for the good will,
which is more important than anything else. The good will (i.e. the will that intends what’s right) is more
valuable than, say, good talents or good fortune. That’s because, no matter how good your talents are, they
aren’t always good.
 EXAMPLE You might intend to use your surgical talents to give people lifesaving treatments. But your
intention might change: you might intend to use this skill to torture people instead.
Talent isn’t inherently valuable because its value depends on something else (i.e. the purpose you use it for).
Only the good will has inherent value because only it doesn’t depend on something else for its goodness.
You couldn’t have a good will if you didn’t have humanity.
 THINK ABOUT IT
Could you intend to do what's right if you didn't have those capacities that make you human, such as
rationality and freedom?
Since human capacities or humanity is needed for the good will, it's just as valuable as the good will. This is
why Kant thinks you should respect humanity as well as the good will.
 BIG IDEA
Having a good will and humanity are the only things that have value in themselves, because they don't
depend on anything else to make them good.
4. The Formulation of Humanity in Practice

Now let’s try to apply this formulation. First of all, you need to identify a maxim. Then you need to see if that
maxim treats humanity merely as a means, or whether it treats humanity as an end as well.
 EXAMPLE Say your maxim is: “When I’m struggling with my study I will ask a friend to talk me through
her notes.”
Your intention here would be to use your friend to help you understand what you’re studying. But since you
do nothing to limit their rational or moral capacities, you also respect their humanity as an end. Therefore, it’s
permissible.
Now let’s see what happens when we change this maxim.
 EXAMPLE Say your maxim is: “When I’m struggling with my study I will blackmail my friend for her
notes.”
In this case you don’t allow your friend to make the decision to help you for themselves. Instead, you make
them do it by threatening to do something bad to them. So you don’t respect their humanity as an end in
itself. Therefore, it’s impermissible.
 SUMMARY
We started this tutorial by seeing that Kantian deontologists perform an evaluation of maxims rather
than actions or their consequences. It was explained that a maxim is the principle of action that you
use in certain situations. The formulation of humanity was presented as a way to test whether a
maxim is permissible or not.
Then we saw that the absolute value of humanity lies in the fact that it's needed for the good will,
which is the only thing that has intrinsic value. Finally, we looked at the formulation of humanity in
practice by applying it to two maxims, one of which was permissible, the other impermissible.
 TERMS TO KNOW
Maxim
The situation-specific principle of an action that an agent upholds by acting in that way
by John Lumsden
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this tutorial we will look at how Kantian deontology fits with our everyday ideas about right and
wrong, before seeing how this ethical theory responds to certain issues in applied ethics. Our

agent's intent. The way you figure out if an intent is good or not is by seeing if it follows the categorical
imperative.
 HINT
Recall that the categorical imperative is that moral demand or law that’s binding on everyone, no matter who
you are or what circumstances you find yourself in.
Kant knew that it’s difficult to see what the categorical imperative is telling us to do. To make it easier, he gave
different formulations of it. These formulations determine the kind of principles, what Kant called maxims, that
should guide your action. One of them is the formulation of universal law. You can test your maxim using this
formulation like this:
One of Kant’s other formulations gets us to think about our humanity. He argues that this is more valuable
than anything else. For this reason, we should only use it for some other purpose if we can respect its value at
the same time. This is called the formulation of humanity. You can test your maxim using this formulation like
this:

Sometimes our everyday understanding of what is right and wrong agrees with what the categorical
imperative demands. For instance, most of us think killing someone merely for our own gain is wrong.
Depriving someone of their humanity just so you can get what you want fails to meet the categorical
imperative. That’s because this would use humanity as a mere means.
Another example is our belief that we should return things to their owners. To see why the Kantian
deontologist agrees with this, let’s evaluate a maxim that’s the opposite of this everyday moral belief.
 EXAMPLE “When people lend me things I will keep them for myself.”
If everyone held this maxim, then no one would lend things anymore because they know they would never
get them back. By making this maxim universal it contradicts itself. That’s because the intention of the maxim
was to get stuff for free by never returning things. But no one would lend things anymore, thus undermining
the intention.
By testing this maxim with the formulation of universal law, you can see that the Kantian deontologist would
say we should return things to their owners.

There are other cases, however, where our everyday understanding of what is right and wrong doesn’t agree
with what the categorical imperative demands. For instance, most of us don’t think it’s morally impermissible
to be lazy. You might dislike laziness, but you probably wouldn’t prohibit it.
For Kant, you are going against the categorical imperative if you’re lazy. That’s because you not only have a
duty to preserve humanity, but also to further humanity.
 THINK ABOUT IT
If you just watch TV all day, then you aren’t using and improving your rational capacities.
Another example is our belief that lying is sometimes justified. Kant thinks it’s never justified because you
devalue humanity when you use deception to achieve some other goal.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine a friend asked for your honest opinion about their latest art work. You don’t like it, but you
don’t want to hurt their feelings. So, instead of telling them the truth, you lie and say you think it’s
great.
This goes against the categorical imperative because you aimed to save someone’s feelings, rather
than respect their human capacities. If you gave them honest feedback, they would have the
opportunity to reflect on it and grow as a rational agent.
Some people might put their friend’s personal development above their friend’s comfort. But the point is that
most wouldn’t think you’re obliged to do so. And the Kantian deontologist does think there is such an
obligation.

Sometimes it’s not clear whether or not our everyday moral views fit with Kantian deontology. This can be
because the categorical imperative can seem to give two different answers to what it is we ought to be doing.
For instance, sometimes it seems that being a good person (i.e. having a good will) is the only goal that all
people can aim for under any circumstances. But Kant also allows happiness to be a moral goal for all people.
This seems a bit confusing. After all, doesn’t Kant say that happiness can be bad if it’s a bad person that’s
happy? Only the good will is always good.
But Kant gets around this by saying that securing happiness can help us to be moral.
 EXAMPLE If you're unhappy, you’re more likely to follow your desires rather than doing the right thing.
For instance, if you’re in a bad mood when someone approaches you asking to give to charity, you’re
might decide to cheer yourself up by spending your money on a treat instead of giving it away.
Another instance of an unclear result is found when some maxims meet the standard of one formulation of the
categorical imperative, but not the other.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you want to be the only student in your class so that you can get all the teacher’s attention
and therefore improve quicker. So you decide to get to class early every day, before everyone else
gets there.
You haven’t undermined humanity in any way, so it should be fine according to the Formulation of Humanity.
But it would fail the universalizability test. That’s because, if everyone did the same as you, you would no
longer get the teacher’s attention, thus contradicting the intention of your maxim.

Philosophers working in ethics often try to apply ethical theories to specific situations. Let’s consider how a
Kantian deontologist might apply their ethics to the following issues.
1. the moral permissibility of suicide

2. the moral permissibility of abortion
3. the moral permissibility of torture
Here are the positions that Kantian deontologists take on these issues.
Kantian Deontology and Applied Ethics

Suicide Killing yourself to end suffering is impermissible because your'e getting rid
of your humanity just to ease your pain.
Abortion If a fetus is classed as a person, then it's impermissible. If a fetus isn't
classed as a person, then it's permissible.
Torture Torturing someone until they talk is impermissible because your'e using
them as a means to your ends.
If you disagree with these ethical judgments, then you may not think Kantian deontology is the best ethical
framework for judging which actions are right and wrong.
SUMMARY

We started this tutorial with a review of Kantian deontology, focusing on two of the formulations of the
categorical imperative. Then we looked at the ways Kantian deontology can be in agreement with
everyday morality, and how it can be in disagreement with everyday morality. We saw how using the
categorical imperative makes sense in some situations, but seemed too strict in others.
Then we looked at some uncertain cases where it was not clear whether there was agreement with
our everyday morality. Finally, some topics in applied ethics were considered from the perspective of
Kantian deontology.
Support for Kantian Deontology
by John Lumsden
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this tutorial we will look at various reasons why Kantian deontology is an attractive ethical theory.
Our discussion will break down like this:
1. Importance of Intention for Morality
2. Further Support
1. Importance of Intention for Morality

agent's intent. The way you figure out if an intent is good or not is by seeing if it follows the categorical
imperative.
 HINT
Recall that the categorical imperative is that moral demand or law that’s binding on everyone, no matter who
you are or what circumstances you find yourself in.
One way to see that intentions are more important than circumstances is through a thought experiment.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine two people, each driving in their own car. One respects human life, but accidentally hits a
pedestrian, killing them. The other is evil and intentionally murders someone with their car.
In both cases someone died. But the intent of each driver was different. For this reason, the one that
didn’t intend to kill anyone isn’t morally blameworthy, whereas the person that did intend to kill
someone is morally blameworthy.
If you agree that these two cases do differ morally, then you accept it is intentions that matter, not
circumstances. This gives Kantian deontology a strong advantage over utilitarianism. Since the utility is the
same in both cases, utilitarianism wouldn’t distinguish them like the Kantian deontologist does.
There are many similar cases that prove this point.
 EXAMPLE Say the police are asking for information to help capture a killer. One person offers
information because they want to potentially save lives if they can. Another person only does so to get a
reward. Both pieces of information help the police.
The outcome is the same, but only the first person was moral because of their good intention. The other
person did it purely for their own benefit, and so doesn’t have moral worth.
2. Further Support
One of the reasons Kantian deontology is attractive for many people is because it backs up an important
intuition most of us have. This is the intuition that people have value beyond being used as mere tools.
 THINK ABOUT IT
If a slave was treated really well by their owner and was pretty happy, wouldn’t you still feel there’s something
wrong about this situation?
For most people, there are just some things more important than happiness. This is genuine freedom or the
ability to be a self-determined agent. Kant’s formulation of humanity grasps this idea. It says that our humanity
is more valuable than anything else and so should be respected at all times.
Another aspect of Kantian deontology that makes it attractive is the fact that it fits with many of our ideas
about what morality should be like.
1. Some things are simply just the right thing to do (and some simply wrong).
2. These are like rules that can’t be broken, no matter what.
3. They apply to all people without exception.
Although many of us feel strongly about these things, we can’t always say why we think they’re so important.
A great advantage of Kantian deontology is that it offers an explanation for these deeply held beliefs. This is
especially important in philosophy since philosophers argue that our beliefs should be justified.
SUMMARY

We started this tutorial by looking at the importance of intention for morality, using a thought
experiment to show that situations that are the same in their circumstances and results are still
morally different. This difference was found in intentions, supporting the importance this has in
Kantian deontology. Then we saw further support for this ethical position, focusing on how it fits our
ideas about the value of people and the nature of morality.
Problems with Kantian Deontology
by John Lumsden
 WHAT'S COVERED
In this tutorial we will look at various different problems facing Kantian deontology and some
responses to them. Our discussion will break down like this:
1. Moral Luck
2. Other Problems
1. Moral Luck
agent's intent. One problem with this emphasis on intention is that it rules out the moral relevance of external
circumstances. In particular, it doesn’t seem to make sense of the fact that we judge people even when they
aren’t fully responsible for the outcome of their actions.
 EXAMPLE Suppose that two people intend to murder different people. They both decide to use
poison. The first successfully kills their victim. But the second doesn’t, because their intended victim just
happened to be immune to that type of poison.
People may think that the successful murderer is worse than the unsuccessful one, even though the
difference between them was due to luck. For this reason, this is often called moral luck. Kant thinks morality
can’t depend on such things as luck because he argues that moral worth is only in the intentions.
There are many other instances where moral luck plays a part.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you decide to dedicate your life to science. You figure that you need to cut off all contact
with your family and friends in order to put all your energies into making discoveries.
If you manage to advance science through your efforts, then it may have been worth it. But perhaps
you’re just not cut out for it, and you never make a lasting contribution to knowledge.
Most people would think highly of you if you were successful. But if you were unlucky enough to fail at your
life’s work, then you might be judged badly as someone who abandoned their family for no good reason. As
you can see, moral luck plays a part here.
In the above example, whether or not you have natural talents (e.g. for scientific study) is out of your control.
There are many other factors that could be out of your control.
 EXAMPLE If you’re lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family, then it’s easier to make moral
choices. For instance, you’re in a position to give to charity and you don’t need to fight people for the
necessities of life.
The circumstances around your birth play a role in the opportunities you have to act morally.
2. Other Problems
Sometimes it seems like you should do something even though it goes against certain (Kantian) duties. For
instance, it might be the case that saving human life requires lying or stealing.
 EXAMPLE Perhaps a homeless person needs to steal medicine from a drug store to treat a chronic
illness. Or maybe you lie to a police officer about the whereabouts of someone because you fear they will
be mistreated and die in custody.
A Kantian deontologist seems to be unable to resolve the conflict between the duty to save life and the duty
to not steal or lie.
Another problem for the Kantian deontologist is that they seem to be committed to the idea that ignorance is
good. That’s because you can do bad things and still be a good person as long as you are unaware of the
moral impact of your actions.
 EXAMPLE Let’s say you’ve bought a ring where the diamond comes from a country that sells them to
fund a warlord’s criminal activities. If you don’t know about it, then you can’t have intended to contribute to
this situation.
Since intentions are the only thing that matters for the Kantian deontologist, it’s better to not know about such
global political issues. That’s because you can still have a good will if you unintentionally contribute to
international abuses. There are many other examples like this.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine that you manufacture snacks. You produce food that has a very high proportion of salt,
sugar, and fat. You do this because it’s cheaper and easier to make low quality food taste good.
If you didn’t know that excess salt, sugar, and fat contribute to serious illness, then you wouldn’t be
to blame for the harm this causes.
But this doesn't mean you can be intentionally ignorant. If you tried to cover your back by purposely avoiding
looking into the moral impact of your actions, the Kantian could fault you for this. For instance, if a lazy doctor
intentionally failed to check up on her patients, she would be to blame for any harm that comes to them, even
though she’s unaware of their condition.
Finally, Kantian deontology is often charged with neglecting the role of feelings in ethics. This criticism points
out that, since duties are determined by pure reason alone, the Kantian can’t make sense of the fact that our
emotional response to situations seems to be important for ethical action.
 DID YOU KNOW
An early version of this criticism was made by the great German poet and philosopher, Friedrich Schiller. He
mocked what he believed was the strange result of Kant’s ethics: that you shouldn’t like the people you help
so that you’re sure you’re doing good from duty rather than feelings.
It should be noted that Kant has an answer to this objection. He says that it’s fine for our feelings to be
involved, as long as it’s reason that dictates what’s the right thing to do.
SUMMARY

We started this tutorial by looking at how Kantian deontology fails to account for moral luck in our
ethical evaluations. We saw that factors outside people’s control often play a role in the way we judge
people. Since Kantian deontology says moral worth is only in the intention, it can’t account for this.
Then various other problems were considered, including the problem of conflicting duties, the
apparent commitment to ignorance, and the dismissal of the role of feelings in ethics.
Advantages and Shortcomings of Kantian
Deontology
by John Lumsden
WHAT'S COVERED

In this tutorial we will be looking at the strengths and weaknesses of Kantian deontology. In particular,
we will look at the ways that this position fits with what makes sense to us. Our discussion will break
down like this:
1. Review of Advantages and Shortcomings
2. Intuitiveness of Kantian Deontology
1. Review of Advantages and Shortcomings

agent’s intent. Circumstances outside an agent’s control therefore don’t matter for this ethical theory.
In this view, if someone does something good or bad accidentally or unintentionally, then they shouldn’t be
praised or blamed for it. In other words, Kantian deontology doesn’t give any weight to moral luck.
Another problem with privileging intention in ethics is that it seems to make ignorance a good thing. That’s
because you can do bad things and still be a good person, as long as you are unaware of the moral impact of
your actions.
There are many things to say in favor of Kantian deontology. One is that it fits with our ideas about what
morality should be like. For instance, it agrees with our views that:
1. Some things are simply just the right thing to do (and some simply wrong).
2. These are like rules that can’t be broken, no matter what.
3. They apply to all people without exception.
But the strictness of this ethical theory can also lead to some problems. Sometimes it seems like you should
do something even though it goes against certain (Kantian) duties. For instance, it might be the case that
saving human life requires stealing.
 EXAMPLE Perhaps a homeless person needs to steal medicine from a drug store to treat a chronic
illness.
A Kantian deontologist seems to be unable to resolve the conflict between the duty to save life and the duty
to not steal. Therefore, it seems like an unrealistic account of how we are to act.
2. Intuitiveness of Kantian Deontology

As we have seen, Kantian deontology provides ethical evaluations that sometimes make sense to us, but
sometimes don’t. In other words, it can give us both intuitive and counterintuitive results.
One way this position is intuitive is that it says intention is important for moral judgment.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine two people, each driving in their own car. One respects human life, but accidentally hits a
pedestrian, killing them. The other is evil and intentionally uses their car to murder someone.
In both cases someone died. But the intent of each driver was different. For this reason, the one that
didn’t intend to kill anyone isn’t morally blameworthy, whereas the person that did intend to kill
someone is morally blameworthy.
We intuitively think that the person that purposely killed someone is much worse that the person that
accidentally killed someone.
A counterintuitive aspect of Kantian deontology is found in its lack of concern with outcomes of
consequences.
 EXAMPLE A Kantian will say that you should tell the truth no matter what, even when telling the truth
brings great harm to people.
Most of us would think twice about telling the truth if the consequences were so damaging.
 SUMMARY
We started this tutorial with a review of advantages and shortcomings of Kantian deontology, focusing
on the drawbacks of basing ethics on intention and the attractiveness of the fact that it fits our view of
what a morality should be. Finally, we considered the intuitiveness of Kantian deontology, looking at
examples of intuitive and counterintuitive results of this ethical theory.

Unit 3 Tutorials Examining Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 3 Tutorials Examining Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 3 Tutorials: Examining Utilitarianism

and Kantian Deontology

Understanding Kantian Deontology

Applying Kantian Deontology

Evaluating Kantian Deontology

4. The Scope of Utility

 DID YOU KNOW

1. How much utility is produced and to what degree

2. Permissibility and Impermissibility in

3. Types of Permissibility in Utilitarianism

The actions would have been evaluated in the following way:

2. Agreement with Everyday Morality

3. Disagreement with Everyday Morality

Imagine you have absolutely nothing but mounting debt.

5. Topics in Applied Ethics

1. The moral permissibility of suicide

1. Act and Rule Utilitarianism

2. Advantages and Disadvantages

Source: Brick image (modified), public domain, http://bit.ly/2c0Xmrk

1. Introducing Hedonic and Idealist Utilitarianism

2. Higher and Lower Pleasures

1. Utilitarianism and the Group

2. Further Support for Utilitarianism

1. Intentions and Actions

2. Kantian Deontology and Intentions

3. Kantian Deontology and Pure Reason

4. The Categorical Imperative

1. Review of Kantian Deontology

2. Formulations of the Categorical Imperative

2. The Formulation of Universal Law

3. The Formulation of Universal Law in Practice

2. The Formulation of Humanity

3. The Absolute Value of Humanity

4. The Formulation of Humanity in Practice

Now let’s see what happens when we change this maxim.

1. Review of Kantian Deontology

2. Agreement with Everyday Morality

3. Disagreement with Everyday Morality

4. Some Uncertain Cases

5. Topics in Applied Ethics

1. the moral permissibility of suicide

Kantian Deontology and Applied Ethics

1. Importance of Intention for Morality

There are many similar cases that prove this point.

 DID YOU KNOW

1. Review of Advantages and Shortcomings

2. Intuitiveness of Kantian Deontology

You might also like