From the earliest days of philosophy and complex thought, one particular question has been hotly debated: What is considered moral? Throughout the centuries, humanity has not come any closer to a definite answer, but convincing theories and philosophies have provided interesting food for thought. This question has also found itself in many different natures, such as "what is considered virtuous or just?" To which the Greek philosopher Plato attempted to answer in his monumental work “Republic.”
But two mindsets seem to provide simple, yet daunting answers to this most basic question: Immanuel Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” and John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism.”
Let’s say for instance that a dictator in a given country was planning to make the lives of his own people worse than before through faulty economic and political policies that will specifically benefit him and his friends. Yet, one woman has a chance to stop this before it begins with a clear shot to the dictator’s head. The dictator is vulnerable, she has the motivation to stop him, and she will receive no political repercussions for her actions because nobody will have seen nor expected her to do it. In such a scenario, one must ask what the right course of action would be.
According to 18th century Prussian philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the woman should not take the shot, as it would not be right to solve one immorality with another immorality. Kant believed that within all of us there is a maxim, or universal principle of reasoning, that automatically tells us to perform an action (or inaction) in regards to a certain situation. In this case, Kant believes that the woman should not take the shot, as it would go against her inner reasoning and morality. Kant refers to this phenomenon as the “categorical imperative,” where in any given situation a person must abide by their rationality and not stray towards any actions that they would not want performed unto themselves. The overriding principle is that one must not look towards the ends of a situation, but must ask themself if the means are justifiable according to the maxim and spring into action if said means are defensible.
On the other hand, 19th century English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), believed that the woman should have taken the shot, as the overall result will determine an action’s morality. The concept of Mill’s “utilitarianism” is focused primarily around who will benefit the most from a given action, contrary to Kant’s categorical imperative. While utilitarianism does not focus so much on the means, the main determining factor of what is moral amounts to not only who will benefit from the action, but also how much pleasure they can get from the benefit. While Kant argues that we must follow our inner rationality and moral maxims, Mill argues that it is the end result and how many people it affects that determines an action’s morality.
In such a turbulent and tumultuous society we live in, we may never know the true nature of what is good. Too many questions, variables, and hypothetical situations surround this question, and despite being simple in hindsight, it is far more complex than any of us could imagine. Being revolutionary for their time, Kant’s categorical imperative and Mill’s utilitarianism both prove to be excellent insights into what exactly it is we call morality. Despite having their differences, they are reminders to us in what it means not only to be good, but also to be human. Who knows, maybe both are right, perhaps neither, or maybe goodness is subjective.
So dear reader, before you come to a conclusion on the question of morality, ask yourself:
“Would I take the shot to save millions of lives, or pass because killing is against my inner maxim?”
