Q&A: Moral Law
Moral Law
Question
Hello and blessings,
I would appreciate some clarification on a topic I don’t fully understand:
The categorical imperative obligates me by virtue of the fact that I agreed that these are the laws of morality (the meaning of a moral law is that one should obey it if one wants to be moral).
Can this also work with utilitarianism? It is clear to me that the entire utilitarian approach is based on the naturalistic fallacy, but seemingly one could formulate the principle of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people” as a general moral law, and then it too would be binding. (If we could find justifications for it.)
My main question is: what are the justifications, or what is Kant’s orderly argument for why the moral law of reason is the true moral law? And has it occurred to you / do you know of a utilitarian argument that grounds the principle of pleasure? If so, why is Kant’s argument preferable to the utilitarian argument?
Thanks in advance,
Itai
Answer
One has to distinguish between two meanings of utilitarianism: 1. The principle of utility is the justification that obligates us to act this way. 2. The justification is the categorical imperative of morality, but the definition of what we ought to do is the principle of utility.
Let us assume that when I give charity to a poor person I have increased utility. One can understand that I have an obligation to give him charity in two ways: 1. Because it brings utility. Here there is a naturalistic fallacy. 2. But one can say that I must do the moral act because of the categorical imperative of morality. The definition of what a moral act is, is the principle of utility, and therefore I must give charity. That is entirely valid.
Now, if any question remains, please ask.
Discussion on Answer
As far as I understand, I agree with almost all of that, with one reservation. I don’t think you can arrive at the criterion of utility through reason alone. You arrive at the fact that morality is based on a categorical imperative (that is, unconditional and general). For Kant, the content of the imperative is what you would want to become a universal law. Others argue that the content is maximal utility. I don’t think there is any convincing justification for that apart from intuitions.
It would have been appropriate to concentrate answers about the categorical imperative under the laws of idolatry.
Thanks! So if I understood correctly:
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 (that is, the principle of utility), and I still remain within a deontological category, right? And in essence I arrive at the same conclusions and the same actions as utilitarianism, only with a different justification (though I still run into all the familiar measurement problems of this approach).
And if so, then is one of the reasons to reject teleological approaches that there is no way at all to ground the “ought” in them? In other words, in your opinion is the only way to ground morality by means of a binding law, and therefore there is no real moral theory except deontological theories? (Assuming objective morality, of course.)
I hope the questions are clear; if not, I’ll try to sharpen them.