M.

ARIF
Roll No. 21

EP103026 EP103031 EP103030 EP103035

M. JAMAL KHAN
Roll No.

M. HASSAN
Roll No. 23

NAMEER AHMED
Roll No. 24

Sir Humayun Raza

We dedicate this report to our parents and tecachers.

ii

The purpose of this project is describing about Analysis of Utilitarian Theory of Ethics and Kantian Theory of Ethics. The report was produced by our group after researching on several websites which gave us valuable information about various aspects of the topic. The main purpose of preparing this project is just for completing Universitys formality and knowing a vast knowledge about Utilitarian Theory of Ethics and Kantian Theory of Ethics.

iii

After reading this project you will be able to know that what is Utilitarian Theory, history about it and its founder. Act Utilitarian, Stuart Mill Criticism about Utilitarian Theory of Benham. Kanitian Theory of Ethics. What are similarities and difference between these two theories of Ethics? How much these theories are important for Business Ethics.

iv

First of all we are grateful to ALMIGHTY ALLAH, the most gracious and merciful, without the help of Allah nothing is possible. When we were going to be start this project it seemed that the task is bit too difficult, but like always ALLAH helps us to proceed successfully through every stage of it. we also feel privileged to extend our deepest, genuine and heartfelt gratitude to our indulgent, sincere and learned advisor and course instructor Sir Humayun Raza who at all stages of this project, provided us with valued guidance.

Utilitarian Utilitarian Theory Classical utilitarian Problem Act Utilitarianism Utility Jeremy Bentham The Modified hednostics Calculus Weakness of Utilitarian Criticism of Bentham Theory Rule Utilitarain Mills Quality Arguments Four Theses of tilitarian Kentian Ethics Kants Theory Imperative Hypothetical Imperative Categorical Imperative Morality and Categorical A Problem of Kants Theory Criticism of Kants Theory

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

09

vi

The utilitarian, like the ethical egoist or the collective egoist, is a teleologist in approach: the utilitarian will claim that the moral status of what we do is determined by the consequences of what we do. But unlike the ethical egoist or collective egoist, the utilitarian will insist that the principle of equality should be applied to the interests of objects of moral concern. In other words, the interests of all objects of moral concern must be considered on an equal basis in all ethical deliberation. One's own interests, or the interests of people within one's own social group, should not be given a favored status over the interests of others. This is not to say that these interests are irrelevant to moral judgment. It would be as illegitimate to disregard one's own interests in moral judgment as it is to disregard the interests of others. The claim of the utilitarian is simply that the weight given to the personal or group interests of the moral agent in moral deliberation ought to be a function of the degree to which those interests are affected by the action under evaluation, not on the basis of who has those interests. Thus, if I am attempting to determine the moral status of my actions, and my interests will be affected by my actions to the same degree that the interests of each of nine other people are affected, then I ought to give my interests no greater weight in moral deliberation than the interests of any one of these other nine people.

The development of Utilitarian Theory is to consider what sorts of non moral values define our interests as objects of moral concern. In other words, what sorts of consequences provide the criterion by which we can decide the amount of good or evil that is produced by our actions.

Classical utilitarian such as Jeremy Bentham (1782-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-73) argued that the proper moral criterion was happiness, and

that happiness can be understood as the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. This view is sometimes called "Hedonic Utilitarianism" It is from the Greek word hedone = pleasure. We should note that Bentham's and Mill's understanding of pleasure was quite broad. Any experience that we would call "pleasant" was considered pleasurable: listening to music, reading good literature, achieving success and satisfaction in one's career. Similarly, "pain" was used to describe any disagreeable experience, whether it involved physical pain or psychological pain, such as emotional anguish and disappointment. According to this view, then, a moral agent ought to aim at the production of pleasures and the alleviation of pains of whatever sort for anyone affected by the moral agent's actions.

There are a number of problems with hedonic utilitarianism. One problem is that the view interprets pleasure and pain so broadly that the terms lose any meaningful reference to a specific aspect of experience that could be used to determine the value of our experience. The terms "pleasure" and "pain" are used meaningfully when they point to specific feelings within experience, such as physical pleasure and pain that can be distinguished from other sorts of feelings. But when used as broadly as Bentham and Mill used them, the terms simply become synonyms for good and bad experience, and it becomes useless to employ them. We have considered an issue concerning the correct moral criterion for judgment within utilitarianism. There is another issue concerning how this criterion should be applied in moral judgment, an issue that has given rise to two distinct versions of utilitarian theory, commonly called act and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism was the common approach among utilitarians up until the 1950s (although there is reason to believe that John Stuart Mill argued at times from a rule utilitarian perspective). Since then, rule utilitarianism has been adopted by some ethical theorists, so that today both theories are used in ethical discussions.

Act Utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory of ethics which states that a person's act is morally right if and only if it produces at least as much happiness as any other act that the person could perform at that time.[1] Act utilitarianism offers the most straight forward way of applying the utilitarian criterion of moral judgment. According to this view, the criterion should be applied to each individual action of a moral agent when determining the action's moral value (that is, whether the action is right or wrong, permissible or impermissible). This procedure of moral judgment can be expressed in what is commonly called the principle of utility, the basic normative principle of utilitarianism. This principle has been expressed in a number of different ways by utilitarian ethicists, but we might settle upon an expression of the principle that is consistent with ideal utilitarianism as follows. One ought to seek to produce the greatest possible balance of good over evil, or the least possible balance of evil over good, for all who will be affected by one's actions.

"Utility" is the technical term used by utilitarians to refer to the degree to which an action produces good and/or avoids evil. Thus if action A is productive of a greater good than action B, A is said to have a greater utility than B. Likewise, if A and B both produce evil, but A produces a lesser evil then B, then A is said again to have greater utility than B. Thus, returning to the example of Truman's dilemma, if it is the case that dropping the bomb cost fewer lives than a land invasion would have, dropping the bomb would be said to have had a greater utility than a land invasion.

The principle of utility - or Utilitarianism - is a moral test for the rightness of actions, based on how much pleasure or pain they produce. The most wellknown (and developed) version of it is found in the work of Jeremy Bentham. Bentham's method of estimating pleasures and pains can be applied to egoistic hedonism.

The major factors of sensations of pleasure and pain resulting from an action as outlined by Bentham are summarized by these variables. The first four variables (intensity, duration, certainty, and propinquity) show the value of the pleasure or the pain "considered by itself." This phrase implies Bentham did not see pleasure and pain as polar concepts or contraries. The next two variables (fecundity and purity) are properties of the event or action produced by the pleasure or pain-not properties of the pleasure or pain, itself. 1. 2. 3. 4. Intensity (I)--How intense is the pleasure or pain? Duration (D)--How long does the pleasure of pain last? Certainty (C)--What is the probability that the pleasure or pain will occur? Propinquity (nearness or remoteness) (N)--How far off in the future is the pleasure or pain? 5. Fecundity (F)--What is the probability that the pleasure will lead to other pleasures? 6. Purity (P)--What is the probability that the pain will lead to other pains? 7. Extent (E)--How many persons are affected by the pleasure?

Not every action committed will produce a good consequence or outcome. The theory is very simplistic; it relies on one single principle. Utilitarianism is based on the majority of people being happy (known as the principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number), therefore even though there is a majority of people that are happy, there is still a small minority. Therefore Utilitarianism does not ensure 100% of people being happy Many people rely on instinct. The entire idea of utilitarianism, as idealistic as it is, is hardly applied as it takes a long time to come do a decision. The theory could actually be twisted and used to do bad. The fabrication of the theory could come about just by an individual believing their actions will result in a greater number of people being happy. Even in sits basic principle, utilitarianism does not follow the guide of the law. The measurement of happiness, pleasure and pain is extremely hard to define and record. Another persons pain could be another pleasure. Finally, there is the actual misunderstanding of utilitarianism itself. The original creator of the theory, Bentham, his theories can be very misleading and often hard to understand.

Mill shares many of Bentham's beliefs, mill's 'greatest happiness' principle for example is: "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness which is the basis of utilitarianism. Both philosophers were interested in creating the greatest aggregate happiness, an example of this would be that it would be better to make a small amount of people extremely happy than a much larger group of people only slightly happier, as long as the sum of happiness in the first case is larger than the sum in the second. Where Mill's theory strays away from Bentham's, is that he gives a more in-depth and detailed account of the values of certain kinds of happiness in comparison to others. Mill believed that there were qualitatively different sorts of pleasures higher and lower pleasures Bentham on the other hand treats all pleasures as the same. Mill built on the foundations of Bentham's theory of act utilitarianism, but developed his own version which was much more detailed, called rule utilitarianism. A weakness of the simpler version of utilitarianism put forward by Bentham is that he does not give any regard to the way that a pleasure may be produced; Bentham famously declared that a pub game is as worthwhile as poetry as long as the amount of resultant pleasure is the same. Mill rectifies this weakness and answered the criticisms that spoke of utilitarianism as a doctrine only suitable for swine. By introducing his distinction between the levels of pleasure higher and lower. In Mill's own words he says that: "it is better to be a dissatisfied human being than a satisfied pig." Human beings are capable of intellectual pleasures as well as the physical, whereas pigs have only the physical pleasures. Mill argues that these intellectual pleasures are to be valued as a more important happiness than physical happiness, he says that anyone that has experienced both will undoubtedly prefer the intellectual pleasure to the physical, and, even though some people who have experienced both still chose the physical. Out of Bentham's initial 'act' utilitarianism, you could argue that there are loop-holes that allow you to do selfish things under the premise of maximizing happiness, because there is no distinction of higher and lower pleasures, an extreme example of this would be: A man murders his rich, but miserable, father and donates the money to an organization that helps poor children. Under act utilitarianism, this would be perfectly justified; however, rule utilitarianism (which is Mill's modified version stating that we should act with certain guidelines and rules that society follows in mind) establishes this act as bad,

because the father's life is intrinsically good; so you harm him if you take his life. The 'pluralistic' approach that Mill introduces in his version of utilitarianism, as opposed to the purely hedonistic approach of Bentham's, helps us to avoid these situations. Mill's new ideas about intrinsic goodness were very different to Bentham. http://www.fictionpress.com/s/2627051/1/Mill-rectify-weaknesses-inBenthams-Utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that says an action is right insofar as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good, or that "the rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the rule of which it is an instance." Rule Utalitarians are less likely to fall into the trap of talking themselves into doing something foolish for the sake of good results, because following rules, on the whole, has a better chance of yielding better happiness for the most amounts of people. Rule utilitarianism also addresses many of the problems in Bentham's theory and makes it less open to criticism as it encourages law and order within a society which may otherwise break down under the simple laws that Bentham initiated.

Mill argues that we must consider the quality of the happiness, not merely the quantity. It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

Consequentialism: The rightness of actions is determined solely by their consequences.

Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an act produces pleasure. Hedonism is the thesis that pleasure or happiness is the good that we seek and that we should seek. Maximalism : A right action produces the greatest good consequences and the least bad. Universalism: The consequences to be considered are those of everyone affected, and everyone equally.

German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was an opponent of utilitarianism. Leading 20th century proponent of Kantianism: Professor Elizabeth Anscombe (1920-2001).
Basic Summary: Kant, unlike Mill, believed that certain types of actions (including murder, theft, and lying) were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative. For Kantians, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we decide to act: (i) Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? If the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (Kant believed that these questions were equivalent).

Kants theory is an example of a deontological moral theory according to these theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.

Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he referred to it as The Categorical Imperative. The CI determines what our moral duties are. of Professor Eric Barnes ...

An imperative is a command. So, "Pay your taxes!" is an imperative, as are "Stop kicking me!" and "Don't kill animals!"

These imperatives command conditionally on your having a relevant desire. E.g. If you want to go to medical school, study biology in college. If you dont want to go to medical school, this command doesnt apply to you. Another example, your father says, "if you are hungry, then go eat something!" - if you aren't hungry, then you are free to ignore the command.

The primary formulation of Kant's ethics is the categorical imperative,[14] from which he derived his other four formulations.[15] Kant believed that an action can only be morally worthy if it is performed in accordance with the categorical imperative,[8] meaning that it is performed out of a sense of duty to the moral law. For a maxim to be in line with the categorical imperative, Kant proposed that it must be universally applicable to all autonomous beings.[16] Actions which are performed because of some other motive Kant referred to as acting according to the hypothetical imperative, which he did not equate with moral worthiness.[17] Maxims which could not be universally applied fell under the hypothetical imperative.

Morality and Categorical imperatives Morality must be based on the categorical imperative because morality is such that you are commanded by it, and is such that you cannot out of it or claim that it does not apply to you.

Kants view is that lying is always wrong. His argument for this is summarized by James Rachels as follows: (1) We should do only those actions that conform to rules that we could will be adopted universally. (2) If we were to lie, we would be following the rule It is permissible to lie. (3) This rule could not be adopted universally, because it would be selfdefeating: people would stop believing one another, and then it would do no good to lie.

Arthur Schopenhauer appended a criticism to the first volume of his The World as Will and Representation. He wanted to show Immanuel's errors so that Kant's merits would be appreciated and his achievements furthered. At the time he wrote his criticism, Schopenhauer was familiar only with the second (1787) edition of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. When he later read the first (1781) edition, he said that many of Kant's contradictions were not evident. Kant did not distinguish between the concrete, intuitive, perceptual knowledge of objects and the abstract, discursive, conceptual, knowledge of thoughts.

Kant began his investigation into knowledge of perceived objects by considering indirect, reflective knowledge of concepts instead of direct, intuitive knowledge of perceptions. For Kant, there is absolutely no knowledge of an object unless there is thought which employs abstract concepts. For him, perception is not knowledge because it is not thought. In general, Kant claimed that perception is mere sensation. In accordance with Kant's claim, non-human animals would not be able to know objects. Animals would only know impressions on their sense organs, which Kant mistakenly called perception. Kant had erroneously asserted that full, perceived objects, not mere sensations, were given to

the mind by the sense organs. Perception, however, according to Schopenhauer, is intellectual and is a product of the Understanding. Perception of an object does not result from the mere data of the senses. It requires the Understanding. Therefore, if animals do not have Understanding, in accordance with Kant, then they have only Sensation, which, Schopenhauer claimed, gives only raw sense data, not perceived objects. Schopenhauer considered the following sentences on page A253 of The Critique of Pure Reason to encapsulate all of Kant's errors: If all thought (by means of categories) is taken away from empirical knowledge, no knowledge of any objects remains, because nothing can be thought by mere intuition or perception. The simple fact that there is within me an affection of my sensibility, establishes in no way any relation of such a representation to any object. Schopenhauer claimed that perception of an object occurs without conceptual thought. Schopenhauer claimed that perceived representations are the content of a concept. Without them, the concept is empty. Secondary errors

Kant asserted that metaphysics is knowledge a priori, or before experience. As a result, he concluded that the source of metaphysics cannot be inner or outer experience. Schopenhauer claimed that metaphysics must understand inner and outer experience in order to know the world and not empty forms. Kant did not prove that the material for knowing the world is outside of the experience of the world and merely in the forms of knowledge. Kant's writing was obscure. He didn't clearly explain the meaning of and relationships between represented objects, representing subjects, existence, truth, illusion, error, sensations, judgments,words,concepts, perceptions, understanding, and reason.

10