[PTP] A frightening reality

"If we had no winter, the spring would not be so pleasant: if we did not sometimes taste of
adversity, prosperity would not be so welcome." - Anne Bradstreet, 'Meditations Divine and Moral,' 1655

Are we really that much utilitarian today, that we cannot consider anything absolute? Does EVERYTHING have to be relative? Why? Why why why?
To quote John (actor Peter MacNicol), from the Ally McBeal series, "this troubles me". Being utilitarian is being practical. Saying that the right thing is that which brings the most good to the greatest number of people - extremely practical.
But shockingly unpleasant. Utilitarianism is also hand-in-hand with consequentialism (a.k.a. only the facts matter), so... if a lawyer can show that a murderer had no intention of killing the victim, then the penalty is milder. But, say, what if - there's always the "what if?" - what if he really did intend to?...

Our society is based on the most practical solution, but our mind is (or should be) inclined towards the other one - called deontological. I suddenly had the feeling that every model we have all had while growing up is fake. Yet, the clichees we experience all around us - about happiness, and doing good, and the lonely "saints" that eventually end up happy, with the love of their lives - yes, they are all illusions. We are mere "numbers" to the society. Is the way the judicial (law) system is built now really the best solution we have come up with in thousands of years of inhabiting this planet?

Einstein said it best: "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(picture from here)
"Don't think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed." - Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech at Dartmouth College, June 14, 1953 - FALSE, you can concieve thoughts. It's all consequences!
"So far, about morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after." - Ernest Hemingway - You said it! This is utilitarianism in it's most horrific form...

Okay. Where am I getting at? Since today is not a very coherent day for me, I'll just say it: Immanuel Kant

For Kant, the morally important thing is not consequences but the way choosers think when they make choices.

Kant says that only one [kind of] thing is inherently good, and that is the good will.
The will
* found in humans but not nonhuman animals
* not a material thing
* it is our power of rational moral choice
* its presence gives humans their inherent dignity

What makes the will good? The will is good when it acts out of duty, not out of inclination.

What does it mean to act out of inclination? To do something because it makes you feel good or because you hope to gain something from it.

What does it mean to act out of duty? Kant says this means that we should act from respect for the moral law.

How do we do that? We must know what the moral law is.

How do we know that? We use the "Categorical Imperative".

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: Act only on those maxims (or rules of action) that you could at the same time will to be a universal law.

Basically, every time you act, you create a universal law. Would you like others to do the same? Would you like to do the same everytime? (Oh, there's a great comedy to illustrate this point - Click (2006) with Adam Sandler:D)

The Categorical Imperative is a rule for testing rules.
Basically it requires the following steps:
* Before you act, consider the maxim or principle on which you are acting.
* Generalize that principle.
* PERFORM TEST ONE.
If, once generalized, it no longer makes any sense because it contradicts itself, then it is wrong to use that maxim as a basis for action.
* IF NECESSARY PERFORM TEST TWO (a.k.a. Reversibility)
If the generalized version makes sense, then ask whether you would choose to live in a world where it was followed by everyone. If not, do not act on that maxim.
(Source for summary on Kant's philosophy here)

Another thing that Kant said, which is equivalent to the Categorical Imperative is "Do not treat others as means to an end (a.k.a. do not use them), rather as ends themselves."

If you wish to read about morality in Kant's vision (and I do recommend the texts, real modern philosophy!), I have gathered a couple of webplaces. Click here for a short writing (the one I've read and commented a bit here). Or follow the links below:
A huge archive of Kant's work
Some texts in various formats, directly linked
So... which are you? Utilitarian? Deontological? I think a part of us are somewhat a bit of both - but most are just... mainly utilitarian. Sad :( Where's the love?
(picture from here)