Principle of Utilitarianism - Essay Example

?Understanding human choices entails a thorough understanding of the circumstances that are present and are considered during the process of choosinga particular course of action. Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors features interesting and highly philosophical situations in which the characters are able to represent ordinary humans’ susceptibility to make realistic choices that are either inherently good or bad. Allen is successful and effective in leaving the audience reflecting their own lives and the choices they made that are either based on a personal understanding and belief of goodness and badness, and the society’s standard of what decisions are right and wrong. Moreover, Chaffee’s The Philosopher’s Way discusses the various philosophers’ view of the world, the nature of reality, and the truth (2012, 51). By using Kants Categorical Imperative and utilitarian views, morality is relative to humans’ rationale of right and wrong. Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative Kant is the main proponent of a critical type of philosophy known as the categorical imperative. Human beings have the tendency to evaluate their actions based on their emotions towards the acts they committed. This means that it is hard to assess the goodness or badness and rightfulness and wrongness of an action because of the difficulty to find a basis for logically and objectively judging this particular action. Kant helped us in understanding and explaining our actions and decisions based on a given principle known as a priori judgment, in which all knowledge presupposes an experience. It is in this line of thought that Kant differentiated moral judgments from empirical ones. Empirical judgments refer to judging facts of which experience teaches us, while moral judgment tells us what we ought and not ought to do. Empirical judgment does not relate to the understanding of moral action. What Kant meant by a priori judgment also entails a judgment of necessity which judges an act based on universal standards of right and wrong, such as stealing is wrong in any circumstances. Categorical Imperative is considered by Kant as the universal principle of justice that right is superior to good applicable to the whole universe. He postulates that humans must act based on universally accepted maxims which also apply as laws for all of the humanity. Kant believes that moral rules are universal. Therefore, what is allowed for a single person is also allowed for everybody, and what is prohibited for one is also prohibited for the rest. Moreover, what is obligatory for one is also obligatory for the rest. He also acknowledges freedom or autonomy along all individuals, but this autonomy must rest on positive values and will serve as a guiding law for all our actions. The word imperative in his philosophy provides us with some sort of restriction which limits our actions that are grounded on personal interests and selfishness which moral rules considered universally wrong. Simply saying, actions that are morally wrong universally regardless of the means or ends are considered to be morally wrong and nothing else, while morally right actions that are universally accepted are also morally right. In other words, Kant suggests that life is composed only of two colors, black and white, and that there is no extent to which an action can be considered better or worse because it only falls into two categories. White lies are wrong under any circumstances because they are still considered as lies, and lying is universally wrong in any event. Principle of Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham, in his Principles of Morals and Legislation, conveys rationality in his analysis of ‘the greatest happiness system’ or the so-called ‘means-end’. Other philosophers describe happiness as a goal, a result while Bentham describes happiness as simply a pleasure without the pain. In other words, people can quantify the value of pleasure or pain depending on the magnitude and for how long. According to Bentham, the overall good of the society is dependent on the total happiness that individuals feel within the society. Therefore, Bentham believes that a moral principle is judged on its goodness or badness depending on its capacity to promote the goodness of the society if it is universally followed. However, it is also proper to state that the greater number of the population is composed of individuals who also have their own set of judgment. Individuality in decision-making is not considered in Bentham’s writings because it talks about a greater number of people who can benefit from a particular action or decision. John Stuart Mill, on one hand, treats happiness in terms of aggregates, as opposite to Bentham’s equal treatment of all forms of happiness. Mill believes that pleasures concerning the intellect and morality are considered as qualitatively superior compared to pleasures gained from physical contact or physical pleasures. He also dismissed Bentham’s idea that pleasure, being a quantity, equalizes people because according to Mill, there are so-called simple and complicated pleasures, the former being chosen by people who have no experience in witnessing a superior form of art. Mill also believes that humans always aspire to achieve superiority. Nobody wants his or her intelligence to be demoted to that of a fool thus, emphasizing his claim that quality is better than quantity. With that, Mill puts emphasis on the role of education to humanity and its contribution in making rational and sensible human beings who are capable of making sound decisions. Having stated the main points of Kant, Bentham, and Mill, the contemporary philosophical movie Crimes and Misdemeanors projects a visualistic representation of great philosophers’ theories. The story highlights Judah, a successful family man and ophthalmologist, who adheres to the highest principles in morality, but failed to do so, and Cliff, a documentary filmmaker who is characterized as plain, good, and seemingly unsuccessful in his craft. As the story progresses, these characters take a toll as situations lead them to make decisions that will reshape their lives. Using Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, Judah is caught between doing the right thing and the wrong one concerning his infidelity to his wife, Miriam, by having an affair with Dolores, Judah’s mistress, for two years. Whatever choices he makes, it can place him into the category of being righteous or wrong. Kant believes that all acts are universal in nature, and we can judge them in black and white. The society where Judah lives, judges acts based on its rightfulness and wrongness. He lives up to an image of being a philanthropist and a loyal husband to wife Miriam while maintaining a secret affair to Dolores, a situation that is morally wrong in most people’s point of view. Morality steps in and judges’ actions as immoral based on universality. For instance, in most moral concept of today, adultery is wrong because it destroys a socially approved form of relationship. Although some cultures practice polygamy, majority still adheres to a monogamous relationship. Categorically, adultery is wrong, and so Judah needs to keep his affair with Dolores a secret. Another thing is the issue on lying. Under Kant’s categorical imperative, lying is wrong under any circumstances and conditions. However, as the story progresses, Dolores wanted to reveal their secret affair, which in turn, prompted Judah to seek for help from his advice from his brother. Dolores’ death ended Judah’s fear of being caught, but leaves him restless. Under Kant’s categorical imperative, Judah’s act of killing Dolores is wrong because murder is universally wrong. Bentham and Mill’s utilitarianism can justify Judah’s course of action in terms of the greater happiness it can contribute to him compared to the amount of guilt that he will bear if Dolores would have been alive. Under the circumstances of infidelity, Judah might hurt a lot of people, including his wife, the community, and his family, and damage his reputation if ever Dolores comes out in the open, but by killing Dolores, it is only she who will suffer and no one else. Lastly, by choosing to remain mum about Dolores’ death and go on with his life, Judah experiences pleasure and happiness longer, a measure that calculates a great amount of happiness. In the end, the wrongdoers in the film were not punished and did not experience any consequences for their actions. Cliff’s character revolves around an unhappy man who is relatively unsuccessful in his field as a filmmaker. His dealings in life were opposite with Judah who tries to control things in favor of his reputation. Cliff displays a rightful attitude towards life, but does not rightfully display a moral attitude towards his struggling career or his marriage. Also in Kant’s philosophy, Cliff’s inclination to Halley is wrong, considering that cheating is wrong under any circumstances. However, the moral implications of it did not bother Cliff simply because he does not care. The film lastly depicts that people who do good things are not always rewarded and live happily, such as Cliff. Using reason, Cliff looked within himself and discovered the world’s reality and truth, and understood his present circumstances the way he viewed truth and reality. Using the utilitarian approach, however, Cliff’s decision to protect his reputation not just as a filmmaker but as a person with dignity is highly plausible and good. His decision yields the greatest number of happiness for a lot of people involved in his life as compared to the sorrows he has in his heart. Lester and Halley were engaged and continued to be happy, while he retained his marriage to his wife who gives him a societal approval because he continued his marriage. ‘Without the law it’s all darkness,’ goes the rabbi to Judah. Philosophically speaking, the rabbi’s character represents the moral aspect of human existence. His words tried to shed light to the wandering mind of Judah. The rabbi represents a philosophical branch that believes in the existence of God. Based on the scene, the rabbi’s blindness represents Judah’s choice to forget about the existence of God and go on with his life. In other words, the rabbi, is what most people know as the conscience. Rabbi is an excellent element in the fusion of the various characters in the movie who have moral issues to deal. In ancient times, contemporary rabbis can be equated to the oracle who “spoke on behalf of the gods, advising rulers, citizens, and philosophers on everything from their sex lives to affairs of the state” (Chaffee 2012, 59). In a real situation, such rabbi serves as a religion, which is most people’s instrument for doing things that are morally unacceptable and universally wrong. Would Judah be blamed for not following the rabbi’s advice? The answer might be negative, for Judah has his moral precepts of his own, and following, or not the rabbi’s advice is based on his understanding of the consequences of his actions. Utilitarianism can justify the actions of the characters based on the concepts of greater happiness for the greater number of people, just what Judah did. Moreover, categorical imperative can blatantly classify Judah’s decision is inherently wrong because murder is universally unacceptable under any circumstances. The truth of the matter is that, while there are collisions of beliefs among philosophers in order to justify the morality of one’s actions and decisions, morality is relative and dependent among humans who are rational beings. Whether our decisions are right or wrong in the eyes of other people, it still boils down to coping with the consequences of our actions. Reference Chaffee, John. 2012. The Philosopher’s Way. 4th ed. New Jersey: Pearson. Read More