Moral law
Peace and blessings.
I would be happy to clarify a topic that I do not fully understand:
The categorical imperative binds me by the very fact that I have agreed that these are moral laws (a moral law means obeying it if I want to be moral).
Could this also work with utilitarianism? It’s clear to me that the entire utilitarian approach is based on a naturalistic fallacy, but seemingly the principle of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people” could be formulated as a general moral law, and then it would also be binding. (If justifications could be found for it)
My main question is what are the justifications, or what is Kant’s neat argument for the fact that the moral law of reason is the true moral law, and has it occurred to you/do you know of a utilitarian argument that establishes the pleasure principle? If so, why is Kant’s argument superior to the utilitarian argument?
Thanks in advance, Itay
It is necessary to distinguish between two meanings of utilitarianism: 1. The principle of utility is the justification that requires us to act in this way. 2. The justification is the categorical imperative of morality, but the definition of what we should do is the principle of utility.
Let’s say that when I give charity to a poor person, I have increased benefit. It can be understood that I have an obligation to give him charity in two ways: 1. Because it brings benefit. Here there is a naturalistic fallacy. 2. But it can be said that I must do the moral act because of the categorical imperative of morality. The definition of what is a moral act is the principle of benefit, and therefore I must give charity. This is completely valid.
Now if any question remains please ask.
Thanks! So if I understood:
I can through the categorical imperative (with the help of reason) arrive at a general law of the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people (i.e. the principle of utility) and I remain within a deontological category, right? And in fact I arrive at the same conclusions and the same actions of utilitarianism only with a different reasoning (and still encounter all the familiar measurement problems of this approach)
And if that is so, then one of the reasons to reject teleological approaches is that there is no possibility of establishing what is proper in them? That is, in your opinion, the only way to establish morality is according to a binding law, and therefore there is no true moral theory other than deontological theories? (With the assumption of objective morality of course)
I hope the questions are understandable, if I don't try to refine them
As far as I understand, I agree with almost everything, with one reservation. I don't think you can arrive at the criterion of utility through reason alone. You arrive at the conclusion that morality is based on a categorical imperative (i.e., unconditional and general). The content of the imperative in Kant is what you would want a general law to be. Others argue that the content is the greatest utility. I don't think there is any convincing argument for this except for feelings.
Answers to the categorical imperative would have been better summarized in the laws of the 7th century.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
