Utalitarianism is theoretically better, but Kantianism is often times better in practice.
If you are in this perfect relaxed and reasonable state, then U is much better. You will decide right upon the given information. But if you are in a bad mood, for example somebody hurt you, then you see things not very clearly. You might make defiant decisions. Thus, K is better, because it is easier to grasp. If you are mad at someone, it is much easier to use the rule of thumb "Don't hurt people, because they have dignity" instead of understanding the bigger picture that is necessary for U. If you are angry at someone, then you tend to decide more in your own favor. Empathy that is needed for U gets replaced with rage. Or, on the other hand, if you are depressed, you might decide more in the favor of somebody else. You might think, that he is more important than you.
why are you saying utilitarianism is empathetic when it's generally regarded as just the "whatever does the most good for the most people"? That's not empathy.
kant is much harder to grasp for subtle things. E.g. take animal cruelty stuff (going to wiki)
Cruelty to animals
Kant derived a prohibition against cruelty to animals as a violation of a duty in relation to oneself. According to Kant, man has the imperfect duty to strengthen the feeling of compassion, since this feeling promotes morality in relation to other human beings. But, cruelty to animals deadens the feeling of compassion in man. Therefore, man is obliged not to treat animals brutally (Kant, Metaphysics of Morals, § 17).
like that is much fucking weirder than a simple utilitarian that can be "does being cruel to animal give greater benefit to man?"
If i want to find out, what is good for someone, I have to know his stand on the situation. Thus I need empathy. I cannot just say, what is good for me is also good for the other person. i have to find out, what he benefits from, so I need to understand him.
I don't like utilitarianism has too many flaws. It can justify horrible crimes and sacrifice innocent victims in the name of good. It's good only on small scales (like between a small group of people), but breaks down completely in larger models (such as a country).
On the other hand, kantianism require everyone to rationalize well and be well informed. Poor logic or reasoning abilities can lead to horrible things. In that sense, kantianism can only exist in large models.
I don't see why we can't have both...kind of like...theory of special relativity and quantum mechanics?
You don't really make it clear what view you think is correct (as opposed to instrumentally useful in a heuristic sort of why). I think you're saying that utilitarians are correct that the right action is the one that maximizes pleasure over pain, but that one can sometimes achieve the utilitiarian goal better by thinking like a Kantian even though Kantians are wrong about rightness. Is that what you're saying?
This is actually a pretty old theme in utilitarians. They pretty much all acknowledge that you can't actually go through your life trying to calculate expected utilities and for practical purposes advise following useful heuristics most of the time. Of course, you don't have to go full Kantian in order to follow some practical rules.
On January 27 2013 06:29 N.geNuity wrote: Cruelty to animals
Kant derived a prohibition against cruelty to animals as a violation of a duty in relation to oneself. According to Kant, man has the imperfect duty to strengthen the feeling of compassion, since this feeling promotes morality in relation to other human beings. But, cruelty to animals deadens the feeling of compassion in man. Therefore, man is obliged not to treat animals brutally (Kant, Metaphysics of Morals, § 17).
like that is much fucking weirder than a simple utilitarian that can be "does being cruel to animal give greater benefit to man?"
Utilitarians do not ask what creates the greatest benefit for man. They take goodness to be a matter of the balance of pleasure over pain and there is no reason for them to discard animal pleasure and pain in doing so. I can't recall any of them actually discarding this either, though surely some have tried.
I'm sorry dude, but your thesis is implausible. Utilitarianism is in fact not better in theory, that isn't a possibility in philosophy. Nothing is technically "better" because in philosophy that is a loaded term. Saying Kantianism is better in practice is also implausible because his statements regarding everything are incredibly long winded and are impossible to understand for the common man, thus they are not better in common practice. I don't know how you can support your thesis. I'm not trying to hate on you, but I really don't believe such a thesis is possible to uphold.
EDIT: my original post is spoilered, I think Carnivorous Sheep is right to point out that what I said is probably fallacious since I've only taken a few intro courses from universities in philosophy (I'm a highschooler), I'm sorry if my post was misleading or outright fallacious.
Just a suggestion. You may want to put the definitions for Utilitariansim and Kantianism in the description. Otherwise, people wont' truly understand what you are saying.
As for your thesis, it is all right. In each theory, there are strengths and weaknesses. The key thing to understand, however, is that both theories are "objective." This means that our own personal opinions and beliefs are irrelevant; we should act to what is best for society, independent of our opinion. For example, if you hypothetically hate giving clothes to the poor because you want these clothes for yourself, by a Utilitarian standard, you should give them to the poor because there will be more overall happiness. Therefore, your statement given below might be inaccurate.
Empathy that is needed for U gets replaced with rage. Or, on the other hand, if you are depressed, you might decide more in the favor of somebody else. You might think, that he is more important than you.
Moreover, Utilitarianism does have weaknesses. Since it only considers the consequences of an action, it does have flaws. For example, you should technically frame a person in a crowd of a crime if that would prevent a distastrous riot from breaking out and hurting many more people. Crazy? Yes, but that is why many philosophers reject this theory.
Finally, as for Kantianism, treating people as an ends rather than as a means, does have some disadvantages. You need to treat them with dignity, but how do you go about doing it? Kantianism tends to focus on the cause of the event--not its consequences. As a result, your "good" deed can have some unintended--sometimes distastrous--effects.
Overall, you need to understand that these theories are objective and personal feelings are irrelevant. Here is an idea for you. Perhaps you can say that each theory has its advantages and disadvantages, and it depends on the ethical situation at hand to decide what is right.
Sorry if I rambled a bit. Just took a philosophy class in college, so I actually remember this stuff and decided to see what I remembered. Anyway, hope this helps.
On January 27 2013 09:30 docvoc wrote: I'm sorry dude, but your thesis is implausible. Utilitarianism is in fact not better in theory, that isn't a possibility in philosophy. Nothing is technically "better" because in philosophy that is a loaded term. Saying Kantianism is better in practice is also implausible because his statements regarding everything are incredibly long winded and are impossible to understand for the common man, thus they are not better in common practice. I don't know how you can support your thesis. I'm not trying to hate on you, but I really don't believe such a thesis is possible to uphold.
These are very sweeping statements that are not exactly...right? I'm not sure what your understanding of philosophy is but what you're laying out here has doesn't have much to do with...philosophy.
As for the OP's thesis:
It's very general. To truly go in-depth into this thesis would require a lot of work. Simple statements tend to be short and concise, but carry a lot of implications that can quickly spiral into a complicated mess of propositions. It's hard to distill two massive branches of philosophy into twelve words.
I'm not sure what the blog is. A homework assignment? Or just you tossing out stuff for discussion? Either way I would say it's hard to have a meaningful answer to/discussion on the thesis without refining it some more.
On January 27 2013 06:23 Ludwigvan wrote: Here is my little thesis:
Utalitarianism is theoretically better, but Kantianism is often times better in practice.
If you are in this perfect relaxed and reasonable state, then U is much better. You will decide right upon the given information. But if you are in a bad mood, for example somebody hurt you, then you see things not very clearly. You might make defiant decisions. Thus, K is better, because it is easier to grasp. If you are mad at someone, it is much easier to use the rule of thumb "Don't hurt people, because they have dignity" instead of understanding the bigger picture that is necessary for U. If you are angry at someone, then you tend to decide more in your own favor. Empathy that is needed for U gets replaced with rage. Or, on the other hand, if you are depressed, you might decide more in the favor of somebody else. You might think, that he is more important than you.
What do you think?
This is not a thesis, it's just an opinion, read some qualified literature on the subject and use some actual analysis in your writing. Also your title, or question is a bit to ambiguous, try to come up with some more concrete and real. There is also no conclusion to speak of, come up with some form of synthesis like contributing with a found pattern such a commonality or universal difference of the perspectives you used as basis for your thesis.
Are we talking about deontology or hard line Kantianism? Kant's notions of moral law are rather strict to a fault. Accepting a moral stance means obeying the the law, regardless of the situation. The famous example is lying. If a murderer knocks on your door looking for someone in your house, you cannot lie.
If you mean deontology in general, Ross' prima facie duties would be neat. They're quite interesting, because Ross lists several duties for the reader to consider; the catch is knowing which one ought to be held higher than the others in a given situation. It morphs into another form of Utilitarianism, where calculations become important.
There are so many various distinctions of Utilitarianism and Deontology and you don't take any of that into account at all. In fact, you say 'K is better because it's easier to grasp'. Are you serious? It's better because it's easier to understand and thus, apparently (!) easier to apply? You don't even give a reason as to why we should use ease as a measure of a moral theory's goodness (or should I say success?). You know what's even easier than either of those? Divine Command Theory - we ought to do X because God commands X. Pretty simple - does that make it a better theory?
I think when we discuss utilitarianism, we tend to focus on case-utilitarianism, which is much harder to defend compared to rule-utilitarianism. E.g. for the example for which utilitarianism is commonly attacked: if there are five people dying due to failing organs and we can kill one fellow, take his organs and save all of them, should we do so? Case-utilitarianism will say yes as this action benefits the largest number of people, but rule-utilitarianism will say no due to the rule that "innocent people should not be killed" as this rule ultimately benefits society more.
For your example, rule-utilitarianism does the thinking for us during calm times in the form of laws and moral guidelines. When we are agitated we then look to these laws and moral guidelines.
On January 27 2013 15:20 Jibba wrote: What is your definition of 'better' and 'right'?
This is a very valid point. Ethical problems are very hard to solve because "is there any standard for whats good and whats bad except what the man using these words desires?"
Personally I belive we should act as preference utilitarians. But we should not condem certain actions as bad even if they would not bring the greatest good.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120403.gif)
