[0:00]Utilitarianism and Emmanuel Kant's ethics are two very important moral philosophical positions that are fundamentally different from one another. There is a separate playlist with videos for both positions here on my channel, in which you will find very precise information and detailed explanations. In this video, we briefly summarize the most important differences and at the end, we look at three cases from the point of view of utilitarianism and Kant. The utilitarian imperative is, Act in such a way that the consequences of your action or rule of action are optimal for the well-being of all those affected. Kant's categorical imperative in the universal law formula reads, Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. And in the end in itself formula, Act in such a way that you always use humanity, both in your person and in the person of everyone else, as an end in itself, never merely as a means. The four basic principles of classical utilitarianism can be derived from the utilitarian imperative. Using these four principles, we will now compare utilitarianism with Kant's ethics. The first principle is the principle of consequences. It states that only the consequences of an action are considered. Neither the motive for action, nor the action itself are relevant for the morality of an action in utilitarianism. For Kant, it is exactly the opposite. The consequences of an action must not be taken into account. Only the goodwill, the motive behind the action, counts. According to Kant, the consequences of an action are unforeseeable and are beyond the control of the actor. In his view, they should therefore play no role in the moral evaluation of an action. The second utilitarian principle is the hedonistic principle. Utilitarianism is about achieving happiness. Happiness is defined as pleasure and the absence of displeasure. The consequences of actions are therefore judged according to whether they bring about as much pleasure and as little pain as possible for all those affected. In Kant's view, the concept of happiness is not suitable for a uniform definition of the good. The term is far too vague. Everyone understands happiness differently. Pleasure and pain, Kant speaks of inclinations, must not be taken into account when deciding on an action, only pure respect for the moral law. For an action to be moral and not just legal, the action must not be done out of inclination, but out of duty. This means that for Kant, only duty, pure respect for the moral law, may determine the human will, so that the action can be called moral. The third utilitarian principle is the universalist principle. Utilitarianism is concerned with the well-being of ALL those affected by the action. The action must not be selfish, nor must it favor individual persons or groups. This is very reminiscent of the universal law formula of the categorical imperative. Have we discovered something in common here between utilitarianism and Kant's ethics? Clearly not. For Kant, the universal law formula refers to the generalizability of maxims as a universal law. This means that every personal rule of action must be examined to determine whether it can be conceived or wanted as a universal law. In contrast to utilitarianism, this is not about the best possible consequences for all those affected by the action. According to Kant, possible consequences, no matter for how many people, must explicitly not play a role in a decision to act. Finally, the fourth principle is the principle of utility. It is therefore about the benefit that an action brings. This benefit is measured by whether the action causes as much pleasure and as little pain as possible for all those affected. Since utility in utilitarianism is measured by the consequences of actions, this utility also plays no role in Kant's ethics. In Kant's view, only the goodwill is good, and the will is only good if it is determined solely by the moral law, the categorical imperative. The benefit and therefore the consequences of an action must not play a role in the decision to act. Furthermore, in utilitarianism, utility is measured by the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. It is therefore, once again, about inclinations, which, according to Kant, should just as little determine the will. The difference becomes very clear with the end in itself formula of the categorical imperative. According to this, man must never be used as a mere means, even if it benefits the majority. So while Kant categorically forbids the instrumentalization of people, such instrumentalization is permitted in utilitarianism, as long as it promotes the overall benefit. As we can see, utilitarianism and the ethics of Immanuel Kant stand in stark contrast to each other. But what impact does this have on specific decisions? Let's examine this together using three case studies. You borrowed a book from someone a long time ago, but the owner has forgotten about it. A friend who has been looking for the sold-out book for a long time sees it at your place. Can you give him the book? We first argue from the perspective of classical utilitarianism and draw up a list of possible consequences. The friend is very happy about the book. The owner finds out and is annoyed. The owner finds out and doesn't care. The owner doesn't find out. The friend finds out that the book doesn't belong to you and gets annoyed. We then weigh up the most likely consequences and consider which action will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people affected. We make our moral decision on this basis. The most likely scenario is that the friend will be delighted with the book, and the owner will no longer remember it or won't care about it. So if you give the book away, it will bring more joy than suffering to all those affected. So the answer in this case is, yes, you can give the book away. Now to Kant. We argue with Kant's universal law formula of the categorical imperative. The maxim "I give a borrowed book to a friend" can neither be wanted nor thought of as a universal law, as the maxim would otherwise destroy itself. No one could or would lend anything to anyone anymore.
[6:39]The principle of borrowing is based on the fact that you get the borrowed item back. As a universal law, the maxim would be: Whenever someone forgets that you have borrowed something from them, you must give it away. Such a law is inherently contradictory. It cannot be thought of as a universal law. Nobody can want such a law either. After all, you borrow things because you want to get them back. Otherwise, you could just give them away. The answer according to Kant is therefore, no, you are not allowed to give the book away. Second case. You promised friend A that you would go shopping with her. Spontaneously, friend B asks you to help her move, because all the helpers have canceled and she won't be able to do it otherwise. Are you allowed to stand friend A up to help friend B move? Again, we start by arguing from the perspective of classical utilitarianism and first draw up a list of possible consequences. Friend A is angry because you're not going shopping with her. Friend A is understanding and not angry. You go shopping at another time. Friend A wanted to go shopping alone anyway, and is relieved that you're not coming. Friend B is very happy, because you are helping her move. We then weigh up the most likely consequences again and consider which action will result in the greatest possible happiness for the greatest possible number. In the end, we make the moral decision. The help with the move is more likely to bring greater pleasure to friend B than the pain of missing out on shopping for friend A. So the utilitarian answer is, yes, you may stand friend A up. And what would Kant answer? We argue again with Kant's universal law formula of the categorical imperative. The maxim "I stand one friend up to help another move" can neither be wanted nor thought of as a universal law, as the maxim would otherwise destroy itself. Promises would no longer make sense with such a law and no one would be able to trust each other. Standing your friend up means nothing more than breaking a promise. However, the principle of a promise only works if I assume that the other person will keep their promise. A universal law that prescribes breaking a promise, for whatever reason, cannot even be thought of. It would be, logically, contradictory in itself. Moreover, such a law cannot be intentional, as otherwise no one would be able to rely on each other. So Kant's answer in this case is, no, you may not stand your friend up. Now for the third and most blatant case. A mountain railway is heading towards the valley in the fog, towards five hikers who are on the tracks. There is no point in braking hard. You are standing on a bridge over the tracks with a very fat man next to you. Can you push the very fat man off the bridge to slow down the train? Again, we first look at the case from a utilitarian perspective and make a list of possible consequences. The fat man breaks the train and the five hikers survive. The fat man dies. We weigh up the possible consequences and consider which action will bring about the greatest possible happiness for the greatest possible number. Then we make the moral decision. One person dies and five people survive. So the classic utilitarian answer is, yes, you may push the man off the bridge. But didn't Kant raise the objection that we can't know the consequences for sure because they lie in the future? Let's construct other consequences so that you wouldn't be allowed to push the fat man off the bridge. Such possible, albeit rather unlikely consequences could be, the five hikers are mass murderers and intend to kill many people. The fat man is a famous scientist, who is on the verge of developing a miracle cure for cancer. In view of these consequences, the utilitarian answer would be a clear, no. With Kant, things are simpler again. Here, for a change, and because it provides the clearer result in such a case, we argue with Kant's end in itself formula of the categorical imperative. When you push the fat man off the bridge, you are only using him as a means, namely to slow down the train, and not as an end in itself. So Kant's answer in this case is a clear, no, you must not push the man off the bridge.
