122350 04/21/16 PH104: Foundations of Moral Evaluation Dr.

Mark Calano

Utilitarianism seems unfit for the practice of ethics, because of its conditionality and

its giving the top priority to pleasure. Bentham’s version of utilitarianism focuses on the

attainment of pleasure and the avoidance of pain for the greatest number, which is impractical

because humans are more complex than just somebody’s means to the attainment of pleasure.

Mill offers a revised version of utilitarianism that prioritizes human values over physical

pleasures; however, this form of utilitarianism reduces human values to a pleasure. This

means human values are only to be done when they are pleasurable. For me, utilitarianism is

an inconsistent basis for morality because it acts on conditions, and that there is no other

principle than pleasure, when there is something more than pleasure and more than the

subjects who derive pleasure from the action.

Kant brings a morality that is plausible for law. For Kant, doing the good is a matter

of the good will with the human’s a priori understanding of the good. The focus then for Kant

is the right attitude as a principle, and the fulfillment of the duty as a good in itself. The duty,

for Kant, is brought about by law, which must be applicable to everyone at the same time.

The test of universalizability does not make an exception for oneself, which I think defeats

utilitarianism in the aspect of consistency. Kant also states that it is part of our duty to treat

human beings as end in themselves, and not as means to an end. I agree with Kant because he

regards humans as beings that deserve to be treated well, and not just instruments for

someone to achieve pleasure or a certain goal. Furthermore, Kant makes a clarified version of

freedom where I can act according to the laws I give myself with autonomy. Because of

autonomy, I can choose to act upon the desires I’ve chosen with my free will without

overstepping the autonomy of others. What I find problematic in Kant’s philosophy is its

being too ideal and its inclusivity, because his brand of ethics must be reflected upon, instead
of being instructed. This makes the call for reflection latent for others, thus delaying the

possibility of applying the same Categorical Imperative for that person.

Unlike Kant who believes in duty which is a good in itself, St. Thomas says there is a

greater good than human happiness. He narrates that there are levels of goodness in tandem

with the concept of an ultimate good, which is to be with God, the ultimate good. I admire his

take on law and its validity, because I agree that it must be out of reason and for the good of

everyone. It is inevitably formed by an authority chosen by the people and promulgated with

the people. He provides two prime principles, which is the conservation of life, and the

formation of family. While his inclinations are on the good, his morality is based on the

“mind of God” which could possibly get lost in translation when humans interpret it or use

their rationality to understand it. This makes St. Thomas’s philosophy not plausible for me.

Aristotle separates humans from animals through the human capability of doing

actions guided by knowledge of what is good instead of doing what satisfies the man’s

appetitive and nutritive needs. He aims for the attainment of excellence or arete through the

habituation of good acts, the assignment of pleasure in the good and pain in the bad, and

constant evaluation. Virtues are situated in between two extreme aspects of the virtue which

then are considered deficiencies: too much and too little. He states that just actions are done

out of knowledge, choice, and the inherent good of the action.

I then regard Aristotle’s philosophy as the most plausible basis for morality, because

he encompasses the points I wish to maintain from the past moral principles. He is against

simple pleasure as he warns us to be critical about beautiful or pleasurable things. He is also

against the mere following of the tendency of man, just like Kant’s separation of the rational

and empirical, and the non-reliance on man’s inclinations that are less than rational. Like St.

Thomas, he includes the concept of an ultimate happiness, which is the self-sufficient and

complete, but Aristotle involves an experientiable happiness that we can attain in life.