Transcript Introduction to R.M. Hare’s Kantian Utilitarianism

R.M. Hare’s Kantian Utilitarianism
Two-level utilitarianism or Kantian Utilitarianism is an attempt
to accommodate deontological intuitions (Kantian
universalizability) within the framework of utilitarianism by
synthesizing both act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
In summary, a person's moral decisions should be based on a
set of 'intuitive' moral rules (derived from the logical feature of
moral knowledge, common preferences of humanity, etc)
except in certain rare situations (e.g., prima facie principles
conflict, unusual cases) where it is more appropriate to engage
in a 'critical' level of act utilitarianism.
R. M. Hare’s Two Level Utilitarian Model:
– Act utilitarianism states that in all cases the morally
right action is the one which produces the most
pleasure.
– Rule utilitarianism states that the morally right action
is the one that is in accordance with a moral rule
whose general observance would create the most
happiness.
– In terms of two-level utilitarianism, act utilitarianism
can be likened to the 'critical' level of moral thinking,
and rule utilitarianism to the 'intuitive' level.
Basic Argument:
1.
The logic of moral terms like "ought”
a. Moral judgments are by their nature universalizable (they are
more than simple imperatives, they commit one to making the
same ought judgment in all circumstances that share the
same universal features; moral thinking is a rational pursuit).
2.
Facts about human nature and commonly held human
preferences (human condition):
a. Human basic preferences tend to be uniform
b. Humans vary on their ability to think critically and act on what
they determine to be moral principles.
3.
Warrants a two-level version of utilitarianism.
Regarding the Intuitive Level (Kantian/Rule):
The Intuitive Level is composed of prima facie principles or rules derived from the
logical features of moral language (universalizable ought claims) and general facts
& commonly held moral preferences. They are also informed by 2nd level
principles. Thus, a morally right action is an accordance with a moral rule whose
general observance would create the most happiness. Prima facie principles are
beneficial when there isn't time for critical thinking, or when one can't trust one's
critical thinking.
The Intuitive
level is also
informed by
Critical Level
when it comes to
unusual cases,
etc (rule
utilitarianism).
The Intuitive
level also
involves
general facts
& preferences
commonly
held by
humanity.
These rules are generated by the logical
features of moral language; they are by
nature universalizable. This means that
moral judgments are more than simple
imperatives for they commit one to
making the same ought judgment in all
circumstances that share the same
universal features (e.g., let no one
_________ at least, under such and such
experience).
Three Kinds of Intuitive Principles:
According to Dr. Gary Varner, a proponent
of this view, notes:
– Common Morality
– Professional Ethics
– Personal Morality
Three Kinds of Intuitive Level
Principles:
Common Morality emerges when members of society face similar problems.
This is expected because of the universal features of the human condition as
evidenced in the common moralities of various cultures at different times and
places.
Professional Ethics emerge because of the similar kinds of situations repeatedly
certain roles experience; agreements on basic standards of conduct take place.
Personal Morality. Dr. Varner writes, “And insofar as individuals differ in their
abilities to reason critically under various circumstances, critical thinking will
lead different individuals to train themselves to adhere to different sets of
intuitive level rules, including "metaprinciples" for deciding when to engage in
critical thinking and when to stick unquestioningly to one's intuitive level
principles.”
Regarding the Critical Level (Act Utilitarian):
When you encounter (1) an unusual situation, (2) determine that two prima facie
rules contradict each other, (3) or where the normal rules would specify a course of
action that is clearly not the most beneficial, changing one’s mode of moral
thinking to the critical act utilitarian level is necessary (utility needs to be
maximized).
Act utilitarianism is a necessary compliment to rule utilitarianism because in
some cases an individual might pursue a course of action that would obviously
not maximize utility. Conversely, act utilitarianism is criticized for not allowing
for a 'human element' in its calculations, i.e. it is sometimes too difficult (or
impossible) for an ordinary person with imperfect knowledge to calculate the
action of maximal utility
Description of Model:
Each person shares the traits of the following to limited and varying extents at different times:
Archangel:
Prole:
1. Only uses critical moral
thinking; no intuitive principles
are needed.
1. Human weaknesses to an extreme
degree.
2. Superhuman, god-like powers
of knowledge, thought, and no
human weaknesses.
2. Must rely upon intuitions and
sound prima facie principles all
of the time.
3. Unbiased, ideal observer who
can immediately scan all
potential consequences of all
possible actions in order to
frame a universal principle
form which it could decide an
appropriate action for the
situation.
3. Incapable of critical thought.
4. The set of intuitive moral rules
must be simple, general, easy to
memorize, and use.
Advantages declared about this view:
It offers a non-consequential outlook on the intuitive
level; it is not a pure picture of utilitarianism.
It accommodates the kind of claims, duties, and rights
that might be held to be part of a deontological morality.
It is compatible with consequentialism at the critical level
and is a source of those guides at the intuitive level.
Because of the intuitive level, a number of classical
objections have been, according to many, successfully
rejected.
Objection # 1: Not enough time to carry out
calculations needed to maximize pleasure.
It is often claimed that one could never in
practice be a utilitarian because one could never
actually have enough time to carry out the
minute calculations involving happiness ratings
and probabilities that a utilitarian must take into
account. This objection is answered by invoking
the intuitive level of moral thinking.
Objection # 2: Special Pleading:
Second, some critiques claim that utilitarianism leads
inevitably to special pleading, since at every step along the
way in the utilitarian calculus one may take one’s own
happiness into account more than others. This objection is
replied to in the very same way as the last. The intuitive
level keeps special pleading from happening, at least keeps
it from happening as much as any other moral theory does.
For we have these intuitive principles that apply to almost
every case, and that are ingrained in our moral consciences.
So, when I see something in the store that I’d like to have, I
don’t have to go through a calculus about it. I just know that
unless this situation constitutes a moral dilemma (i.e. unless
there is a contradiction between intuitive moral principles) I
shouldn’t steal. There is no room for special pleading there.
Objection # 3: Utilitarianism fails to account for
moral tragedy
A third critique sometimes aimed at utilitarianism is that it fails to
account for moral tragedy. There seem to be cases, this argument
goes, wherein we have two mutually exclusive duties to fulfill and
therefore cannot fulfill one of our duties. This is tragic. R.M. Hare
responds to this problem by saying it isn’t a problem because that’s
what the critical level of moral thinking is there for. He quotes a
humorous line from Anthony Kenny (who was himself quoting from
someone else, I believe a pastor of a church): “If you have
conflicting duties, one of them isn’t your duty.” In other words, if you
have conflicting duties you’ve encountered a moral dilemma. And
moral dilemmas require critical moral thinking. Once you get down
to critical moral thinking you’ll see that one of the things you
supposed was your duty really wasn’t.
4th Objection: Internal Conflict:
Fourth, utilitarians have been accused of implying that answers to
certain moral quandaries are obvious when in fact, even if the
utilitarian solution ends up being right, it was not at all obvious.
Bernard Williams, for one, makes this critique by invoking the wellknown example of Jim, a scientist travelling through a South
American country who accidentally stumbles into the center of a
village only to see 20 natives lined up against a wall firing squad
style and the local enforcer Pedro about to mow them down. On
seeing Jim, Pedro tells him that he was about to shoot these
innocent people just to make an example to the townspeople, but
since the town is so honored to have the presence of the foreign
scientist, they will have a celebration. If Jim will just take Pedro’s
gun and shoot one innocent person, the 19 others can go free. On
utilitarian grounds it is clear what the right answer is, whereas,
Williams argues, we have a great deal of internal conflict about what
the right answer is, and that this cannot be captured by the
utilitarian’s position.
4th Objection: Internal Conflict:
Hare would respond to this argument by insisting that the
utilitarian could in fact explain the cause of the internal
conflict that makes the decision seem less than obvious.
It is precisely because intuitive principles have, for good
reason, been so deeply ingrained in our moral psyche,
that we experience a great deal of internal psychological
discomfort whenever one of these principles (like “Don’t
kill innocents”) has to be violated. And the more intense
the principle is—a principle about lying is likely to be less
psychologically intense than a principle about killing—the
greater this internal conflict. That is why the Jim/Pedro
scenario would not appear obvious to anyone, including
the utilitarian.
Objection # 5: Counter-Intuitive:
Fifth and finally, the utilitarian is often accused of have to
advocate conclusions that are clearly counterintuitive. Another case
from Bernard Williams, that of George, can exhibit this critique.
George is a capable nuclear physicist. He is contacted by the
federal government who is asking him to come to work for a
company that is in the business of providing materials for nuclear
warfare to the government . Now George does not believe in nuclear
warfare because of the tremendous damage it does, not only to the
environment but indubitably to innocent civilians as well. George is
about to turn down the job offer when one of his friends makes the
following utilitarian argument. ‘Look, George, if you don’t take this
job someone else will. And the probability is quite high that this
someone else will not have all the scruples you have about nuclear
war. Thus, it would be better for the overall good that you take the
job, because if you did you might be able place some restraints on
the practice of nuclear war.’ Given the utilitarian’s position, this
would seem to be the required course of action. But, according to
our moral intuitions, Williams argues, this taking the job would still
be wrong for George.
Hare’s Response to 5th Objection:
Hare would respond to this type of criticism as follows.
First, he would want to ask a whole bunch of questions
about the scenario as it’s set up. He has a whole
procedure through which a utilitarian can work whenever
he or she is confronted with one of these fanciful
scenarios that are supposed to show that utilitarianism is
absurd. But if the scenario survives that process intact,
then Hare is willing to say that, yes, the conclusion is
counterintuitive, but our intuitions are only for common
cases and this isn’t a common case. Therefore, when it
comes to a moral dilemma, that we would in the end
settle on a counterintuitive conclusion does not count as
a counterargument to utilitarianism.
Problems:
Hare disregards metaphysics altogether (serious metaphysical,
meta-ethical problems).
Hare fails to solve the problem of moral intuition; it is not
clear that moral intuitions are derivative of rule-utilitarian
thinking.
Remains utilitarian because rules are not imbedded
foundationally.
2-level view is incompatible: Critical level pulls in one
direction and the constraints on the intuitive level pull in
another.
Iris Murdoch’s criticizes Hare’s Kantian notion on the basis
that we have a “fat, relentless ego” which corrupts our nature
at its root. Humans are by nature selfish. If so, how can the
will be a creative source of good?