ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
Literature Text
This piece is a question and answer style article designed to elaborate, in fine detail, on the combined moral philosophy of Kantian Utilitarianism, as well as to provide preemptive arguments for some of the more obvious potential discretion between its goals and its practicality in the reality in which we exist.
What is moral philosophy?
Moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy concerned with the concept of goodness, and with the application of the quality of goodness to actions and people. The goal of moral philosophy is to elaborate on, and to promote the adoption and implementation of, frameworks for morality which are logically self-consistent, and which tend to result in the greatest amount of goodness.
Moral philosophy sounds too unfeeling; aren't simple things like empathy and compassion valuable?
The short answer is: it depends. Some moral philosophies tend toward a strictly logical and planned framework for morality, while others emphasize the value of emotions and desires.
So, what is Kantian Utilitarianism?
Kantian Utilitarianism is a philosophical framework for moral action, which borrows from Qualitative Utilitarian philosophy its concept of the irreducible and innately valuable motive of happiness and from Kantian philosophy its concepts of means vs mere means to an end, and of informed consent, which defines the goodness of those actions on both the intentions of the actor, and the consequences of those actions on other persons, with respect to their demonstrable tendency to promote happiness, and, without exception, to avoid using any person as a mere means to an end.
More concisely?
Kantian Utilitarianism is a litmus test for how good individual actions are, with the goal of promoting the most good, and uses tenets from both Mill's Utilitarianism and Kant's Kantian Morality to attempt to accomplish this goal.
What is the central tenet of Kantian Utilitarianism?
That we ought to do that which tends to promote the most happiness and the least harm, that does not use any person as a mere means to an end.
Why?
Because happiness is the most irreducible desire of action, the presence of which satisfies experiential beings, and the absence of which drives them, and because all experiential beings share this quality and the ability to experience, as well as sovereignty, such that each encapsulates all of existence, individually, within their own individual perception of reality (making each person's experiences equally, and innately, valuable.)
With what general qualities is Kantian Utilitarianism most concerned?
Happiness, freedom and equality.
When is a given action moral within the philosophical framework of Kantian Utilitarianism?
Does it, without exception, avoid using any person as a mere means to an end by avoiding using them without their informed consent or against their will?
Does it tend to promote the most net happiness and the least net harm, as can reasonably be demonstrated with statistically significant evidence or the best evidence otherwise available, in an arguably logically consistent manner?
Does it do so for the most possible persons, irrespective of their individual qualities, with respect only to the general trend of utility of their choices (i.e. in restraint of individuals actively seeking either to use others as mere means to their ends, or to intentionally promote harm and detract from happiness as is proportional to their intended or intentionally negligent effect), so as to be as equal and as fair as is possible?
Does it allow for a gradated, proportionally allocated, definition of personhood that is neither too broad, nor too chauvinistic, erring on the side of caution when it concerns beings of unknown lucidity (i.e. respective of the individual needs of all experiential beings)?
Is it as expedient and sustainable as is possible in promoting happiness and detracting from harm (respecting that present suffering and happiness are no more or less important than future suffering and happiness)?
Does it satisfy these qualities to the best possible extent given the available physical (e.g. labor, capital, etc.) and metaphysical (e.g. intellectual, emotional, etc.) resources available at the time?
Does it equally respect the actor as an experiential being as much as it does any other person, holding their happiness and suffering as no more or less important than the happiness and suffering of others (e.g. demanding no special sacrifice from them simply because they are the actor)?
If so, then yes, the given action is moral within the framework of Kantian Utilitarianism.
What makes Kantian Utilitarianism more a more complete moral philosophy than either Kantian Morality or Utilitarianism on their own?
Kantian Utilitarianism makes up for the shortcomings of each by merging them together. Kantian Morality integrates within its philosophical framework the sovereignty of, and experiential encapsulation of reality by, every individual being, but does not offer answers in situations where the use of people as mere means to an end is the outcome of every available choice at a given time. Utilitarianism offers a quantifiable, testable, answer to every situation on the basis of an irreducible motive for all experiential beings, but has no regard for the proportionate happiness of the many above the raw maximization of happiness for the few (granted that the latter is, irregardless, the situation of greatest utility.) Kantian Utilitarianism, however, offers a quantifiable, testable, answer for every situation, while still integrating the sovereignty of, and experiential encapsulation of reality by, every individual being.
What inspired Kantian Utilitarianism?
Kantian Utilitarianism came as an answer to two rather simple but profound objections to Kantian Morality and Utilitarianism. For Kantian Morality, this was the runaway trolley objection, in which all of the available options use people as a mere means to an end. For Utilitarianism, this was the objection raised by the short story, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas," which highlights the problem of using people as mere means to an end (even if that end is happiness) with a utopia/dystopia created by one person's great suffering irrespective of their will. Kantian Utilitarianism aims to answer the philosophical objections raised by each and resolve them.
Hypothetically speaking, what if Kantian Utilitarianism demonstrably tended to overwhelmingly promote harm, detract from happiness or use persons as mere means to an end?
Then, as per its own tenets, and because it is a logically inconsistent moral philosophy, it ought to be abandoned, and as expediently as is possible. But, by definition, this hypothetical should not be possible.
So, this brings us back to the second question; how does Kantian Utilitarianism view things like empathy and compassion?
Favorably! Both of these things demonstrably tend to promote the most happiness and least harm without using any person as a mere means to an end, and, prima facie, are valuable qualities because they are two of the many individual experiences that Kantian Utilitarianism holds innately valuable (as they are utility-neutral parts of the experiential life of many persons.)
But does Kantian Utilitarianism hold them to be innately good?
While Kantian Utilitarianism does hold them to be innately valuable as experiences, it doesn't necessarily hold them to be good, unless they also tend to promote the most happiness and the least harm without using any person as a mere means to an end (that is, 'good' and 'valuable' are viewed differently in Kantian Utilitarianism.)
According to Kantian Utilitarianism, what is the difference between 'good' and 'valuable'?
In the framework of Kantian Utilitarianism, 'good' refers solely to an action's moral implications, and may be thought of as any action that 'ought' to be done. 'Valuable', on the other hand, has no moral implications, and refers simply to things which arguably hold irreducible value or are composed of things which hold irreducible value, value being anything which is sought after (thus, making any universally sought thing 'objectively' valuable, and anything individually sought 'subjectively' valuable). Examples of irreducibly valuable things are happiness (demonstrable motive behind every intentional action) and experience (only known of two binary states, the opposite of which can not be sought via an informed choice.)
This is all very complicated. How am I supposed to consider all of this every time I make a decision, and does this mean that according to Kantian Utilitarianism, I have been making immoral choices or have been an immoral person if I hadn't considered all of this until now?
In reality, you can't always, or even always regularly, deduce the best possible choice for promoting the most happiness or the least harm, or even avoiding using others as mere means to an end. This does not mean that your choices are immoral, nor does it at all mean that you are an immoral person. Intrinsic to Kantian Utilitarianism is the combined considerations of intentions and consequences as well as available physical and metaphysical resources. If you intend to promote the most happiness and the least harm and avoid using people as mere means to an end, and you make an earnest (best possible) effort to do so, you are already acting morally according to the framework set out by Kantian Utilitarianism, even if you had no idea that that was what you were doing. After all, if you had never learned anything about Kantian Utilitarianism, or if you have limited resources to probe it for any given decision, how could you be expected to factor it in to your evidence-based attempts to be a good person?
This is all well and good, but does it bar involuntary training processes, such as punishment in child rearing and rehabilitation in correctional facilities?
No, it does not. This is because both of these examples are examples of preventing the repetition or the completion of behaviors that promote harm and detract from happiness or else use people as mere means to an end. This is where Utilitarianism makes up for the ambiguity of Kantian Morality. If you do punish the child, or the criminal, true, you use them as a mere means to an end. However, if you allow them, when you are responsible for keeping them from acting immorally, to promote harm, to detract from happiness or to use people as mere means to an end, you are using others as mere means to an end yourself. From a purely Kantian standpoint, these are both equal actions for a caretaker (though, in defense of one's own self, Kant is clear that the abuser of mere means is the assailant, not the victim.) However, from a Utilitarian standpoint, a society which does not attempt to minimize harmful behaviors tends to promote harm, and, therefore, this defines actions which tend to correct or prevent intentionally harmful behaviors (only for those who are in evidence as actors of such behaviors) as moral.
What about things that most people enjoy that require a moment where informed consent is absent, such as relatively harmless practical jokes between friends and BDSM relationships, or where misery is necessarily present, such as in comedy?
In these cases, there are two factors to consider: are these actions victimless (such as in dramatized comedy)? Or, if they aren't, is the concept of 'consent to non-consent' in play? The first refers to the fact that simulated suffering, causing no harm to real people, is perfectly fine, especially in the case of comedy which promotes catharsis and emotional healing (benefactors of happiness.) The second, 'consent to non-consent' refers to a type of contract between people in certain kinds of relationships to take previously established liberties about acquiring consent before an action the very nature of which requires non-consent (such as a prank) -- the same goes for BDSM relationships.
There are people suffering in the real world who don't have the privilege of resources or time to devote to moral philosophy, so what about them?
This is very true -- it is of utmost privilege to be fortunate enough to have the time and the resources to think about or talk about moral philosophy as an academic. To deny this would be insensitive and even insulting. However, one of the practical goals of Kantian Utilitarianism is to reduce the amount of suffering and inequality among peoples and the promotion of utility in allocation of resources, one of the results of which is a gradually shrinking margin of economic disparity.
Alright, one last question. Is the goal of Kantian Utilitarianism to eliminate all suffering? Isn't suffering a part of why we can appreciate happiness?
The elimination of all suffering is not one of the goals of Kantian Utilitarianism. This philosophy is very much a philosophy of practical use -- not idealism -- and in a reality where there are many sovereign experiential beings, it is inevitable that conflicting goals will arise, resulting in strife. This is the reality of scarcity -- be it of time, space, capital or labor -- and is the driving force behind the need for utility (e.g. resource allocation) in our actions. Furthermore, Kantian Utilitarianism is a Qualitative Utilitarian philosophy, which means, for the purposes of this question, that it subscribes to the idea that happiness only exists because there are varying degrees of it with which to compare, and without higher or lower quantities of it, it could not motivate experiential beings to action.
This concludes the article, but I encourage all who read it to share their objections to it and to discuss it, the presence of which can only serve to strengthen it or to cull it in favor of stronger, more complete, moral philosophies.
(Bonus question: When did you find time to compile all of this?
On public transportation to and from my dental appointment two hours from my house. Though I've been critically thinking about it for four years or so.)
What is moral philosophy?
Moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy concerned with the concept of goodness, and with the application of the quality of goodness to actions and people. The goal of moral philosophy is to elaborate on, and to promote the adoption and implementation of, frameworks for morality which are logically self-consistent, and which tend to result in the greatest amount of goodness.
Moral philosophy sounds too unfeeling; aren't simple things like empathy and compassion valuable?
The short answer is: it depends. Some moral philosophies tend toward a strictly logical and planned framework for morality, while others emphasize the value of emotions and desires.
So, what is Kantian Utilitarianism?
Kantian Utilitarianism is a philosophical framework for moral action, which borrows from Qualitative Utilitarian philosophy its concept of the irreducible and innately valuable motive of happiness and from Kantian philosophy its concepts of means vs mere means to an end, and of informed consent, which defines the goodness of those actions on both the intentions of the actor, and the consequences of those actions on other persons, with respect to their demonstrable tendency to promote happiness, and, without exception, to avoid using any person as a mere means to an end.
More concisely?
Kantian Utilitarianism is a litmus test for how good individual actions are, with the goal of promoting the most good, and uses tenets from both Mill's Utilitarianism and Kant's Kantian Morality to attempt to accomplish this goal.
What is the central tenet of Kantian Utilitarianism?
That we ought to do that which tends to promote the most happiness and the least harm, that does not use any person as a mere means to an end.
Why?
Because happiness is the most irreducible desire of action, the presence of which satisfies experiential beings, and the absence of which drives them, and because all experiential beings share this quality and the ability to experience, as well as sovereignty, such that each encapsulates all of existence, individually, within their own individual perception of reality (making each person's experiences equally, and innately, valuable.)
With what general qualities is Kantian Utilitarianism most concerned?
Happiness, freedom and equality.
When is a given action moral within the philosophical framework of Kantian Utilitarianism?
Does it, without exception, avoid using any person as a mere means to an end by avoiding using them without their informed consent or against their will?
Does it tend to promote the most net happiness and the least net harm, as can reasonably be demonstrated with statistically significant evidence or the best evidence otherwise available, in an arguably logically consistent manner?
Does it do so for the most possible persons, irrespective of their individual qualities, with respect only to the general trend of utility of their choices (i.e. in restraint of individuals actively seeking either to use others as mere means to their ends, or to intentionally promote harm and detract from happiness as is proportional to their intended or intentionally negligent effect), so as to be as equal and as fair as is possible?
Does it allow for a gradated, proportionally allocated, definition of personhood that is neither too broad, nor too chauvinistic, erring on the side of caution when it concerns beings of unknown lucidity (i.e. respective of the individual needs of all experiential beings)?
Is it as expedient and sustainable as is possible in promoting happiness and detracting from harm (respecting that present suffering and happiness are no more or less important than future suffering and happiness)?
Does it satisfy these qualities to the best possible extent given the available physical (e.g. labor, capital, etc.) and metaphysical (e.g. intellectual, emotional, etc.) resources available at the time?
Does it equally respect the actor as an experiential being as much as it does any other person, holding their happiness and suffering as no more or less important than the happiness and suffering of others (e.g. demanding no special sacrifice from them simply because they are the actor)?
If so, then yes, the given action is moral within the framework of Kantian Utilitarianism.
What makes Kantian Utilitarianism more a more complete moral philosophy than either Kantian Morality or Utilitarianism on their own?
Kantian Utilitarianism makes up for the shortcomings of each by merging them together. Kantian Morality integrates within its philosophical framework the sovereignty of, and experiential encapsulation of reality by, every individual being, but does not offer answers in situations where the use of people as mere means to an end is the outcome of every available choice at a given time. Utilitarianism offers a quantifiable, testable, answer to every situation on the basis of an irreducible motive for all experiential beings, but has no regard for the proportionate happiness of the many above the raw maximization of happiness for the few (granted that the latter is, irregardless, the situation of greatest utility.) Kantian Utilitarianism, however, offers a quantifiable, testable, answer for every situation, while still integrating the sovereignty of, and experiential encapsulation of reality by, every individual being.
What inspired Kantian Utilitarianism?
Kantian Utilitarianism came as an answer to two rather simple but profound objections to Kantian Morality and Utilitarianism. For Kantian Morality, this was the runaway trolley objection, in which all of the available options use people as a mere means to an end. For Utilitarianism, this was the objection raised by the short story, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas," which highlights the problem of using people as mere means to an end (even if that end is happiness) with a utopia/dystopia created by one person's great suffering irrespective of their will. Kantian Utilitarianism aims to answer the philosophical objections raised by each and resolve them.
Hypothetically speaking, what if Kantian Utilitarianism demonstrably tended to overwhelmingly promote harm, detract from happiness or use persons as mere means to an end?
Then, as per its own tenets, and because it is a logically inconsistent moral philosophy, it ought to be abandoned, and as expediently as is possible. But, by definition, this hypothetical should not be possible.
So, this brings us back to the second question; how does Kantian Utilitarianism view things like empathy and compassion?
Favorably! Both of these things demonstrably tend to promote the most happiness and least harm without using any person as a mere means to an end, and, prima facie, are valuable qualities because they are two of the many individual experiences that Kantian Utilitarianism holds innately valuable (as they are utility-neutral parts of the experiential life of many persons.)
But does Kantian Utilitarianism hold them to be innately good?
While Kantian Utilitarianism does hold them to be innately valuable as experiences, it doesn't necessarily hold them to be good, unless they also tend to promote the most happiness and the least harm without using any person as a mere means to an end (that is, 'good' and 'valuable' are viewed differently in Kantian Utilitarianism.)
According to Kantian Utilitarianism, what is the difference between 'good' and 'valuable'?
In the framework of Kantian Utilitarianism, 'good' refers solely to an action's moral implications, and may be thought of as any action that 'ought' to be done. 'Valuable', on the other hand, has no moral implications, and refers simply to things which arguably hold irreducible value or are composed of things which hold irreducible value, value being anything which is sought after (thus, making any universally sought thing 'objectively' valuable, and anything individually sought 'subjectively' valuable). Examples of irreducibly valuable things are happiness (demonstrable motive behind every intentional action) and experience (only known of two binary states, the opposite of which can not be sought via an informed choice.)
This is all very complicated. How am I supposed to consider all of this every time I make a decision, and does this mean that according to Kantian Utilitarianism, I have been making immoral choices or have been an immoral person if I hadn't considered all of this until now?
In reality, you can't always, or even always regularly, deduce the best possible choice for promoting the most happiness or the least harm, or even avoiding using others as mere means to an end. This does not mean that your choices are immoral, nor does it at all mean that you are an immoral person. Intrinsic to Kantian Utilitarianism is the combined considerations of intentions and consequences as well as available physical and metaphysical resources. If you intend to promote the most happiness and the least harm and avoid using people as mere means to an end, and you make an earnest (best possible) effort to do so, you are already acting morally according to the framework set out by Kantian Utilitarianism, even if you had no idea that that was what you were doing. After all, if you had never learned anything about Kantian Utilitarianism, or if you have limited resources to probe it for any given decision, how could you be expected to factor it in to your evidence-based attempts to be a good person?
This is all well and good, but does it bar involuntary training processes, such as punishment in child rearing and rehabilitation in correctional facilities?
No, it does not. This is because both of these examples are examples of preventing the repetition or the completion of behaviors that promote harm and detract from happiness or else use people as mere means to an end. This is where Utilitarianism makes up for the ambiguity of Kantian Morality. If you do punish the child, or the criminal, true, you use them as a mere means to an end. However, if you allow them, when you are responsible for keeping them from acting immorally, to promote harm, to detract from happiness or to use people as mere means to an end, you are using others as mere means to an end yourself. From a purely Kantian standpoint, these are both equal actions for a caretaker (though, in defense of one's own self, Kant is clear that the abuser of mere means is the assailant, not the victim.) However, from a Utilitarian standpoint, a society which does not attempt to minimize harmful behaviors tends to promote harm, and, therefore, this defines actions which tend to correct or prevent intentionally harmful behaviors (only for those who are in evidence as actors of such behaviors) as moral.
What about things that most people enjoy that require a moment where informed consent is absent, such as relatively harmless practical jokes between friends and BDSM relationships, or where misery is necessarily present, such as in comedy?
In these cases, there are two factors to consider: are these actions victimless (such as in dramatized comedy)? Or, if they aren't, is the concept of 'consent to non-consent' in play? The first refers to the fact that simulated suffering, causing no harm to real people, is perfectly fine, especially in the case of comedy which promotes catharsis and emotional healing (benefactors of happiness.) The second, 'consent to non-consent' refers to a type of contract between people in certain kinds of relationships to take previously established liberties about acquiring consent before an action the very nature of which requires non-consent (such as a prank) -- the same goes for BDSM relationships.
There are people suffering in the real world who don't have the privilege of resources or time to devote to moral philosophy, so what about them?
This is very true -- it is of utmost privilege to be fortunate enough to have the time and the resources to think about or talk about moral philosophy as an academic. To deny this would be insensitive and even insulting. However, one of the practical goals of Kantian Utilitarianism is to reduce the amount of suffering and inequality among peoples and the promotion of utility in allocation of resources, one of the results of which is a gradually shrinking margin of economic disparity.
Alright, one last question. Is the goal of Kantian Utilitarianism to eliminate all suffering? Isn't suffering a part of why we can appreciate happiness?
The elimination of all suffering is not one of the goals of Kantian Utilitarianism. This philosophy is very much a philosophy of practical use -- not idealism -- and in a reality where there are many sovereign experiential beings, it is inevitable that conflicting goals will arise, resulting in strife. This is the reality of scarcity -- be it of time, space, capital or labor -- and is the driving force behind the need for utility (e.g. resource allocation) in our actions. Furthermore, Kantian Utilitarianism is a Qualitative Utilitarian philosophy, which means, for the purposes of this question, that it subscribes to the idea that happiness only exists because there are varying degrees of it with which to compare, and without higher or lower quantities of it, it could not motivate experiential beings to action.
This concludes the article, but I encourage all who read it to share their objections to it and to discuss it, the presence of which can only serve to strengthen it or to cull it in favor of stronger, more complete, moral philosophies.
(Bonus question: When did you find time to compile all of this?
On public transportation to and from my dental appointment two hours from my house. Though I've been critically thinking about it for four years or so.)
Suggested Collections
Kantian Utilitarianism: A Hybridized Moral Philosophy
This is a philosophical piece that I have been working toward for about four years now, ever since I started seriously thinking about moral philosophy. And, today, after using some travelling time (about four hours) to compile it, it is at last ready to share. Please feel free to promote discussion, whether it be in agreement or disagreement.
This is a philosophical piece that I have been working toward for about four years now, ever since I started seriously thinking about moral philosophy. And, today, after using some travelling time (about four hours) to compile it, it is at last ready to share. Please feel free to promote discussion, whether it be in agreement or disagreement.
© 2013 - 2024 mmorpger
Comments0
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In