Search

Home My Account Subscribe Shop Log In

Jul/Aug 2011
Articles

Presidential Decision-Making:
Utilitarianism vs Duty Ethics Print

Michael Rockler compares two ethics of statemanship for two American Email
presidents. Discuss
United States presidents, beginning with George Washington in his policy regarding
Share
the French Revolution, right up to George W. Bushs decisions affecting terrorism
and the war in Iraq, have had to face ethical questions of great importance. The
Enlarge cover historical evaluation of a presidency whether or not is has been successful is
often based on the way in which the president approached moral dilemmas.
Back Issues
This article looks at presidential decisions in the administrations of Abraham Lincoln
Podcasts and Harry S. Truman. It examines how each applied both utilitarianism (which is
closely related to democratic governance) and Kantian duty ethics in making
Search significant judgments.

Forum Utilitarianism may be understood as a commitment to the search for the common
good. The first utilitarians sought to measure pleasure and pain in order to help
Events them achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. Their goal was to
maximise happiness. However, utilitarianism failed in its attempt to calculate the
Links amount of pleasure and pain across society. This kind of assessment is ultimately
too complex and subjective. More articles
Books from this issue
Contemporary utilitarianism abandoned the measurement of pleasure and pain in
Free Articles favor of a less complicated formulation based on the examination of consequences.
In any given act, positive outcomes should be greater than negative results, such
Webfeed that there is a net positive gain for the common good. In other words, the consequences of actions must
be evaluated and decisions made which lead to a positive increase of benefits for society.

In contrast, the duty ethics of Immanuel Kant can be summarized with three key propositions. First, for
FOLLOW US ON
Kant, ethics is a rational process. Everyone must use his or her intelligence to determine what is morally
appropriate, since human beings foremost characteristic is reason. Once an appropriate ethical stance is
determined by reason, it becomes ones duty to act ethically on the basis of what one has concluded
rationally. The second Kantian proposition is the requirement that human beings tell the truth. This is the
Most Most Most prime duty, for without it lacking a deep commitment to honesty human social relations cannot
Read Discussed Emailed
effectively occur. Finally, Kant identified the categorical imperative. This says that you should judge your
actions as if your behavior were a model for all humanity. As part of this, Kant also argued that each
1. The Death of person should be treated as an end in themself and not simply be used by others. He wanted people to
Postmodernism And create communities where persons were endowed with dignity and respect and would be treated as
Beyond responsible, valuable citizens.

2. How To Be A
Philosopher
3. What Is This Thing
Called Love?
4. Is Love An Art?
5. Morality is a
Culturally Conditioned
Response
Presidents often need to be utilitarian. That is, they have an obligation to find a way to achieve the
greatest good for the greatest number; more generally, they need to engage in actions whose positive
outcomes for the society outweigh the negative consequences.
Many presidents have also been Kantians. As men committed to democratic ideals (usually), they believed
that human beings need to be seen as ends in themselves and not as tools for the use of others. They
also understood that their actions would be seen as models for others to emulate, and could have
reflected that their principles could be applied universally.
Sometimes utilitarian and Kantian goals can be in conflict. Ill argue that President Trumans decision to
use the atomic bomb against Japan was a utilitarian decision by a president who tended to act within a
Kantian framework. Similarly, Lincoln found a way to reconcile a utilitarian perspective with his
commitment to duty ethics in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, which had both the economic good
and the good of the individual as motivations. Thus Lincoln and Truman applied both utilitarianism and
duty ethics in their decision-making.

Abraham Lincoln and the Ethics of Slavery

All of his life, Abraham Lincoln was an opponent of slavery on Kantian-type grounds. Following the
categorical imperative, Lincoln believed that one could not support the enslavement of others because one
would never want to be a slave. He wrote, As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. He
understood that when human beings are enslaved by others they are used as means to the ends of
others. This is also a violation of the categorical imperative. Lincoln also argued that it was inconsistent
for a country founded on democratic beliefs to maintain slavery: the United States republican form of
government could not be a model for other nations as long as slavery existed.

Lincoln also opposed slavery on utilitarian grounds. He believed that the negative consequences of slavery
outweighed any positive. Thus Lincoln believed that slavery was both wrong, and led ultimately to the
diminution of the public good.

Lincolns ethical struggle stemmed from the fact that at his inauguration in 1861 slavery was legal under
the Constitution, and he had taken an oath to preserve the Constitution. Any attempt to abolish slavery
would be a violation of that oath. This would also be a violation of Kants principle that one must always
tell the truth.
Lincoln resolved his ethical conflict over slavery by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. It
abolished slavery in the states which had revolted against the U.S. government, while allowing it to
continue in those slave states still in the Union. He could abolish slavery in the rebellious states as part of
his war powers as Commander-In-Chief, as a way to weaken their ability to engage in rebellion. This
action was consistent with his oath to defend the Constitution, since the document also gave him
extraordinary power in time of war. Lincoln also proposed an amendment to the Constitution which would
abolish slavery in all of the states. That amendment became part of the Constitution after Lincoln was
assassinated.

Lincoln applied his utilitarian belief that slavery should be abolished for the greater good of the country.
His Kantian perspectives regarding the universality of actions, the non-use of people as the tools of other
people, and his belief in not violating his oath of office were also maintained. Within these parameters,
Lincoln found a way to abolish slavery in most of the United States by the Emancipation Proclamation. He
also started the process that resulted in the 13th Amendment and the abolition of slavery in all of the
United States.

Harry S. Truman Hiroshima, The Marshall Plan and Civil

Rights
Harry S. Truman, now regarded by historians as a great or near-great president, also applied both
utilitarian and Kantian principles in his ethical behavior. But these were applied to different ethical
dilemmas in his presidency rather than reconciled in a single decision, as with Lincoln and emancipation.

Perhaps the greatest ethical dilemma Truman faced was the decision to end the war with Japan by using
the atomic bomb. To this day there are those who praise him for bringing the war to an end with the
minimal additional loss of the lives of U.S. and Allied troops. There are also those who condemn him for
the use of this terrible weapon of mass destruction. But the use of the bomb can be seen as a case of the
direct application of utilitarian ethics.

Within few weeks of Truman becoming president, the war in Europe ended with the defeat of Germany.
Truman also received word that the United States had developed a nuclear bomb capable of tremendous
destruction. He was required to decide whether to use this weapon on the Japanese to bring about their
quicker surrender and the final conclusion of the war.

It could be assumed that with the end of the war in Europe, an invasion of Japan would be successful, and
that the war could be ended with the conquest of Japan. However, to do this would cost a lot of human
lives. Since the invasion never took place, it is impossible to know how many Allied soldiers would have
died in the invasion. Truman heard estimates that put the death toll in the range of 500,000 to 1,000,000
Allied casualties.

Truman was also aware of the continuing slaughter of Japanese from ongoing non-nuclear bombing, which
had already cost the Japanese some 100,000 lives. Dropping atomic bombs and forcing the Japanese to
surrender would not only save Allied and American lives, it would end further futile Japanese soldier and
civilian deaths as well.

So Truman decided to use nuclear weapons on utilitarian grounds. He reasoned that dropping the atomic
bombs would ultimately cost less lives Allied, American and Japanese than would the continuing
conventional bombardment of Japan coupled with the deployment of a huge military force on the Japanese
Islands. And the use of the atomic bombs did end the war.

Two other initiatives in the Truman presidency demonstrate his application of Kantian principles in the
exercise of his office.

The first is the Marshall Plan, which was a strategy for rebuilding Europe with U.S. financial support
(named after General George Marshall, who was Trumans Secretary of State). The Marshall Plan, which
was costly and demanding, helped Europe recover its strength, and eventually the European nations
returned to self-sufficiency. Thus the United States funded the economic rehabilitation of Europe, which
had been nearly totally devastated by the Second World War.

The Marshall Plan can be seen as an application of the categorical imperative, in the sense that Truman
understood that ethically he could not avoid helping to rebuild Europe, since nations in a community
cannot allow some members of that community to live in devastation and despair as a sort of universal
principle. Ignoring the needs of others cannot be a universal principle, and hence the Marshall Plan can be
seen as an application of the categorical imperative. Truman would have expected Europe to help with the
rebuilding of the United States if the situation were reversed.

Trumans support of civil rights for African Americans is another example of the application of Kantian
principles. The mistreatment of any group by a society cannot be supported, since it violates the
development of the community. Discrimination, even against a minority by a majority, cannot be accepted
as a universal principle. The reverse would obviously never be acceptable. Lincoln made this clear in his
statement that as he would not be a slave, so he would not be a master.

As part of his civil rights program Truman desegregated the armed forces, fought for the passing of anti-
lynching laws, and became the first president to address the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People. When he left office there was still much to do with regard to racial equality and social
justice, but he was the most active president in advocating civil rights since the time of Reconstruction.

Thus Trumans ethical decision-making, like Lincolns, can be seen as the application of both utilitarian and
Kantian principles.

Summary and Conclusion

Because the presidency of the United States entails great power, the decisions of individual presidents
often have great significance, and often depend on careful ethical decision-making. Both Abraham Lincoln
and Harry Truman made some of their most important decisions by a combination of utilitarian and
Kantian principles. The Emancipation Proclamation, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the decision
to help rebuild Europe with American funds, and the commitment to civil rights were among the most
significant decisions in American history. Their impact is perhaps magnified because they can be seen as
the careful application of ethics to human affairs. All presidents make important decisions; but the
historical process of deciding which presidents achieved greatness and which did not perhaps relates to the
extent to which these decisions can be seen in an ethical context.

Prof. Michael Rockler 2007

Michael Rockler is Adjunct Professor of General Studies at Capitol College in Laurel, Maryland.

Further Reading
Burnes. B. Harry S. Truman: His Life and Times, Kansas City Star Books, 2003.
Chadwick, B. The Two American Presidents: A Dual Biography of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis,
Carol Publishing Group, 1999.
Donald, D.H. Lincoln, Simon and Schuster, 1995, and We Are Lincoln Men: Abraham Lincoln and His
Friends, Simon and Schuster, 2003.
Guelzo, A.C. Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation, Simon and Schuster, 2004.
Hamby, A.L. Man of the People: A Life of Harry S. Truman, OUP, 1995.
McCullough, D. Truman, Simon and Schuster, 1992.

CONTACT US ABOUT US FOR AUTHORS TERMS & CONDITIONS

Philosophy Now 2011. All rights reserved.