Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism

Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism

Conclusion: By abiding by utilitarianism, everyone should become a vegetarian.

EP1: Vegetarian diet does not involve great sacrifices, not in our health, nor in our capacity to feed the growing population, nor in the pleasures of the palate. (333)

EP2: No matter how humane our original intentions, as long as we continue to eat animals there is a danger of our sliding back into the methods of treating animals in use today. (332)

            IP1: Eating animals, requires treating them inhumanely.

EP3: The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal considerations. (329)

EP4: The principle that the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being. (328)

EP5: Utilitarianism, in its classical form, aims at minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure.  Many nonhuman animals can experience pain and pleasure… In this respect they are like humans and unlike rocks. (328)

            IP2: The pains and pleasures animals feel are no different from those of humans.

            IP3: Because humans and animals share these sensations, they deserve equal treatment.

EP6: Applying the principle of utility to our present situation… leads us to the conclusion that we ought to be vegetarian. (325)

            IP4: By not eating animals, they can no longer be treated inhumanely.

Conclusion: By abiding by utilitarianism, everyone should become a vegetarian

Questions: Utilitarianism, Chs. 2-4

What is Mill's argument for why we should strive for our actions to benefit the happiness of as many people possible?
• Mill's writing nearly a century before us, in a different country: should we believe this argument is still valid?
• Does Mill mean that a person must continually take a global perspective in mind when they act?
• Is there a conflict between the rights of others and our action for the sake of others (17)?

How does Mill respond to the critique that, due to the limitations of our knowledge and powers, we cannot be certain what effects our actions will produce--and therefore cannot calculate how to act?

Why is Mill using the word sanction in such a funny way?

Why is Mill asking about the sanction for utilitarianism?
Why does he belabor his treatment of the internal sanction?
Does he think this internal sanction is part of human nature? Is this a problem?

If virtue, or disinterested moral action, could not be integrated into utilitarianism, would this be an obstacle to the "proof" of its principle?

Protection from the tyranny of the majority is vitally as important as protection from tyranny of political despotism

Conclusion: Protection from the tyranny of the majority is vitaly as important as protection from tyranny of political despotism.

EP1: Power granted to select groups in a society usually lead to abuse of the weaker member of the community (217)
  IP1: These conflicts arose because of self-interest

EP2: Recognition of certain limits (ie liberties) were created in order to prevent such events in times of political despotism (218)

EP3: Self-governments, or governments where the "people" exercise power, are not always representative of the whole community (219)

EP4: Only the majority or the most active members of society are granted with power, leaving the minority powerless yet again (219)
  IP2: The most popular opinion is what becomes law
  IP3: This law is forced upon everyone, even those who don't believe in it- the minority

EP5: Society as popular opinion as a whole can enact its own laws, whether it is right or wrong, which can penetrate more into society than a powerful despotism (220)

EP6: Popular opinion is purely based on opinion which is not supported by reasons but rather by personal preference (221)

  IP4: If protection of liberties are granted when select groups rule, a similar instance must be done when popular opinion rules

Conclusion: Thus, Protection from the tyranny of the majority is vitally as important as protection from tyranny of political despotism.

Better to be a Human Dissatisfied than a Pig Satisfied

EP1: If the pleasures of humans and animals are exactly the same, what is a pleasure for swine will a pleasure enough for man. (8)

            IP1: There must be some delineation between the pleasures of animals and man, because this supposes that human beings are only capable of the pleasures of which animals are capable.

EP2: Animalistic pleasures do not completely fulfill a human being’s conception of happiness. (8).

            IP2: There is a contrast between the pleasures of man and the pleasures of animals.

EP3: Human beings have a conception of happiness elevated beyond that of animalistic pleasures. (8)

EP4: Once made conscious of this elevated conception of happiness, human beings do not regard anything as happiness which does not satisfy this faculty. (8)

EP5: People capable of both kinds of pleasures generally have a preference toward the ones that require this higher faculty. (9)

EP6: Few people who have employed their higher faculties would allow themselves to be resigned back to only the lower pleasures. (9)

            IP3: There is a distinct value placed on pleasures derived from the higher faculties, because it is placed higher in value than base pleasures.

EP7: Of two types of pleasures, if there is one that is preferred by those who have experienced both, despite moral reasoning to prefer it, that is the greater pleasure. (8)

EP8: Pleasure of the higher human faculties is greater than that of base pleasures because of the people who have experienced both, none prefer to lower themselves to base pleasure once more. (9).

EP9: Human pleasures which require higher faculties of knowledge are of a higher quality than more animalistic ones. (10)

Pleasure is Utility

Conclusion: Utility must be understood as the greatest amount of pleasure 

EP1: End goals are not easy to prove to be util

IP1: Utility is the optimization of usefulness

EP2: Something that is good is shown to be this way by a means that must also be good

IP2: It is not possible or easy to prove that the means is good

EP3: The good that is not an end is a means

EP4: Good ends bring pleasure

IP3: Pleasure is a means that cannot be proved as good

EP5: Accepting or rejecting that something is good cannot be arbitrary

EP6: Determining utility must have a first principle

Conclusion: Utility must be understood as the great amount of pleasure

Permissible Actions

Conclusion: The fundamental moral principle needs clarification about what is permissible.

EP1: The fundamental moral principle contains the concept of moral permissibility. (153)

EP 1a. These concepts of moral permissibility go against moral thought. (153)

IP 1.  Some actions may be morally permissible and others are morally impermissible.

EP 2.  Actions that do not respect some human being as a rational creature should not be permissible. (153)

IP 2. Human beings should be shown respect by being treated as rational creatures.

EP 3.  Not to respect every human being, including every individual and oneself, as a rational creature is impermissible. (154)

EP 4.  Respect for persons as rational creatures can be defined in specificatory premises.

EP 5.  An action of the kind K is always permissible (154)

EP 5a.  Actions that succeed in respecting any human being as a rational creature are not impermissible. (154)

EP 5b.  Actions of the kind K are successful in respecting any human being as a rational creature. (154)

EP 6. Actions of the kind K are never permissible. (154)

EP 6a.  All actions of the kind K are unsuccessful in respecting some human being as a rational creature. (155)

EP 7.  If an action of the kind K can be performed, it is never morally permissible not to perform the action. (154)

EP 7a. Therefore when an action of the kind K can be performed, not performing the action disrespects some human being as a rational creature. (155)

EP 8.  Therefore, direct analysis should not be used to form specificatory premises because a certain kind of action may fall under a certain concept most the time and fall under a different concept the rest of the time. (156)

IP 3. If an action is impermissible given one situation, it may be permissible given a different situation.

IP 4. Similarly, if an action is permissible given one situation, the action may be impermissible given an alternative situation.

IP 5. All humans have the same ideas about which situation an action is permissible or impermissible in.

EP 9.  A natural approach demonstrates it is impermissible to carry out certain actions at will and permissible to perform the action in other scenarios. (156)

EP 10.  There are various circumstances during which an action is considered impermissible if done by will and permissible if not. (158)

Kant on Rationally Achieving a Moral End

Conclusion: in order to rationally achieve a moral end, one must will the necessary means.

EP1: The act of duty demands a person to obtain a good will. (9)

EP1a: A rational being is not exercising a good will when he does what he knows is wrong. (10)

EP1b:One will be exercising a good will only if he does what he does because it is right, and not because he expects some reward in the end. (12)  

EP2: This concept of duty is not one we get from experience. (17)  

IP1: Experiencing instances of duty will not lead one to a moral end.

  

EP3: Moral demands apply to all rational beings and allow no exceptions. (22)

IP2: In order to achieve a moral end, one must follow his conception of laws.

EP4: Everything in nature works in accordance to laws. (23)

EP5: Rational beings obtain a will that lets them act as they think they should and not be pushed around by laws and forces. (23)

IP3: One’s will is nothing but practical reason.

EP6: Practical reason determines the will to choose only that which is practically necessary and good. (24)

EP7: The determination by one’s reason to choose something that is good allows a rational being to have judgment. (25)    

EP8: One’s judgment that one should act in one way or another falls into two different imperatives. (25)

            EP8a: Hypothetical imperative: one’s practical force depends upon the

particular ends that are being satisfied. (25)

EP8b: Categorical imperative: one’s practical force is not dependent on the outcome or end. (26)  

EP9: Morality requires that people act in certain ways not to achieve a particular end but to act unconditionally, whether or not that furthers the ends. (27)

EP10: Failures of practical rationality are failures to take what one recognizes to be the necessary steps to achieving one’s ends while not abandoning the ends. (27)

EP11: To adopt a moral end is to set oneself to be the cause of achieving that end. (27)

EP12: The idea of one being the cause of achievement in an end, contains the idea of one doing whatever he believes is necessary. (28)

Man's Conscience

Conclusion: Through man’s conscience, man is indirectly judged by God.
EP1: The conscience is a form of internal judgment for man. (100)
EP2: Every man has a conscience. (100)

EP3a: Man can’t escape his conscience’s presence, and this internal judgment cannot be avoided. (101)  

EP3b: Man can choose not to listen to the voice of his conscience, however he cannot choose to stop hearing the voice of his conscience. (101)

IP1: Due to this unavoidable nature, man’s conscience must possess power beyond man’s grasp. 

EP4: If man created or controlled his own conscience, he would be able to rid himself free of the guilt of a certain action by controlling the judgment his conscience makes. (101)

EP5: Therefore, the judge of his actions who works through his conscience must be someone other than himself. (101)

IP 2: The standards for this judgment must be universal and objective.

IP3: Therefore, the judge of these actions must have the knowledge of all that is universal and eternal.

IP4: In order for this judge to have complete knowledge of all that is universal and eternal, he must be universal and eternal himself.

EP6a: This judge of man’s actions must be a powerful and moral being that has the authority to set these universal standards for all actions (102)

EP6b: If this being didn’t have this authority, he couldn’t possess the power to authorize or condemn an action. (102)

EP7: The only moral being this powerful is God. (102)

EP8: Therefore, God must be the universal judge that works through every man’s conscience. (102)

Kant on Love as a Duty

Conclusion: Loving another human cannot be considered a duty of a human.

EP1: There is no such thing as a duty to love (60). 

IP1: When one human acts in a way that benefits another human; the first human is not required to love the second.

EP2: Duty could also be referred to as a restriction (60).

EP3: If a person acts as a result of a restriction, it cannot be called love (60).

IP2: Love cannot be a result of limiting circumstances.

EP4: To act in a way that benefits fellow men is the duty of a human (60).

EP5: This duty remains the same even when it is claimed that humans are not worthy of being loved (61).

IP3: If a human is not worthy of being loved, it is the duty of another human to act in his benefit.

IP4: It is the duty of human to act in the benefit of another human, but it is not his duty to love him.

EP6: If a person hates the non-virtuous aspects of another person, that person is neither acting for or against his duty (61).

IP5: If a person does not like certain aspects of another, it is not that person’s duty to find pleasure in them.

EP7: One cannot be forced to find pleasure in something (61).

Kant on the Doctrine of Duty

Conclusion: Since men possess freedom of choice, the concept of duty is ethical and not juridical.

EP1: Duty is a concept of necessitation. (36)

EP2: Necessitation can be an external constraint or a self-constraint. (36)

EP3: Men have freedom of choice, so duty contains self-constraint or fortitude, the ability to resist negative temptations. (37)

IP1: The law is external constraint.

IP2: Men must practice self-control in order to ensure moral actions.

EP4: Man can only choose an end for himself. (38)

IP3: Peers can lead you to commit an, but you are the only one with the ability to determine the end. 

EP5: Duties of virtue and their maxims must be rooted in moral principles. (40)

IP4: In order for an action to be morally sound it must be performed purely out of duty.

EP6: All actions must fit the moral doctrine of ends. (43)

EP6a: The action must be to better oneself through knowledge and correction of his wrongdoings or to listen to one’s moral feeling. (44)

EP6b: The action must benefit the happiness of another. (45)

IP5: An action performed out of selfish or negative intentions that produces an end is not also a duty.

EP7: Ethics can be defined as ends in alignment with pure practical reason and categorical imperatives. (38)

EP8: Where there is freedom of choice and the necessitation is self-constrained it is an ethical matter. (37)