The Metaphysics of Moral, Socrates Crito and Mills Utilitarianism - Essay Example

Kant Grounding for the Metaphysics of Moral, Socrates’ Crito and Mill’s Utilitarianism According to Kant, is Socrates’ decision to stay in jail moral? Why or Why not? It would not be a mistake to suggest that from the very dawn of its history the mankind tried to guide its actions with various ethical principles. That is why there is no wonder that philosophers of different times tried to develop their own approach towards the problem of right and wrong. It may be particularly interesting to apply ideas that belong to thinkers who lived relatively recently to the circumstances that his counterpart in a different age faced. This paper will analyze the decision of Socrates to refuse to escape prison from the point of view of Kant. To begin with, it may be rather suitable to analyze some of the most fundamental elements of the approach that was developed by the latter so that it can be applied to the situation of the former. Thus, when it comes to evaluating legacy of Immanuel Kant one can not omit one of the major contributions that he made, namely the concept of categorical imperative. According to it, there is a universal maxim that urges a person to behave in a certain way regardless of the consequences that one faces or the difficulties that this decision brings (Kant 29). What is more important is that this kind of thinking eliminates any ambiguity that might appear while considering ethical dilemmas as the concept of categorical imperative assigns every action one particular meaning which is not adjusted by any additional circumstances. This is the major point of view that should be taken into account. Now, it may be advantageous to analyze some details of the situation as well as the behavior that Socrates shows. To begin with, one should point out that when the philosopher is question is asked to escape from a prison, he refuses (Plato 89). Kant might find this refusal to be highly moral since it shows that Socrates wants to follow the universal rules that were established by the society. Indeed, escaping a prison is considered to be a crime, while a crime is clearly a violation of rules that were designed by the society. Kant might point out that a person who lives in a civilized society must never break rules and regulations which are thought to guide lives of the citizens. That is why the decision not to escape prison is already seen as a moral action by Kant. Crito, the person who came to save Socrates, thinks that the latter is afraid of the negative consequences that his escape will have on this friends (Plato 90). While the philosopher admits that he does cares about his friends and their future, he points out that this is not the major reason why he wants to stay in prison. This desired to refrain from causing any discomfort to friends is likely to be highly praised by Kant. Indeed, according to him people should not treat other people as means to achieve their goals. There is no doubt that if Socrates agreed to escape with the help of Crito, the former would not have treated the latter as a means to do so. Nevertheless, in the view of Kant, it is an imperative to respect others and make sure that they do not have to suffer from negative consequences of our actions. While talking to his friend, Socrates explains that he is a type of an individual who is primarily guided by reason and not other aspects of reality. Indeed, he suggests that he is able to rise above the difficult conditions of the current state of affairs and make sure that he is able to see the situation in the long run. It is quite obvious that Kant would approach of such way of life. It is highly probable that the reason which Socrates refers to is synonymous to Kant’s universal maxims and categorical imperative. So, the two philosophers will surely agree on what makes an action a moral one. Later in the dialogue, Socrates points out that Crito should not take into his account the view of the majority of the people, but follow the principles that he deems to be correct (Plato 92). This kind of organization of one’s behavior is close to the view of Kant. Just like Socrates, the latter thinks that the thought of the majority does not matter; only the compliance with the independent duty is what is able to make a person happy. In other words, the German philosopher shares the idea of Socrates that the imperative for morality should come from within rather than from external environment. Finally, there is another point that should be taken into consideration while analyzing the choice which was made by Socrates with regard to whether he should escape prison or not. Several times in the dialogue he points out that it is not permissible to repay evil with evil (Plato 93). Indeed, he was wrongly accused (which is an evil act), but he will not do any thing good if he escapes from the prison (which means that he will commit yet another evil act). Kant would strongly agree with this kind of thinking, since according to him people should never increase the amount of evil or disharmony in the world. Having examined all the evidence, one is able to come to the following conclusion: in spite of the fact that Socrates and Immanuel Kant lived in different centuries, the position that they developed with regard to the issue of right and wrong is quite similar. This is particularly seen on the example when Socrates was offered an opportunity to escape prison and the consecutive death penalty, but refused to do so. In the view of Kant, the Greek philosopher acted morally, just like categorical imperative would urge him to, namely not to violate rules and regulations which were developed by the society. In addition to that, Kant would also approve of the idea of Socrates such as the necessity to be guided by reason, disregard the opinion of the majority and never repay evil with evil. Kant and Mill on lying It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that every person finds oneself in an unpleasant situation from a moral point of view. While the circumstances might be different, anyone would like to have a solid ground to justify a decision that one is willing to make. The issue of lying is something that people have discussed for a considerable period of time and so far there have been several approaches developed that often come to contradicting conclusions. In spite of the fact that in general society treats lying is a negative phenomenon, there are some thinkers who say that under certain conditions this action might even be regarded as a moral one. This paper will take a close look at two positions which were developed by the following philosophers: on the one hand, the ideas of Kant will be engaged which will be contrasted with the view of Mill on the same issue; the point of the essay is to show that the position of the latter is far more convincing and persuasive. To begin with, it may be particularly important to analyze each of the positions separately. Thus, Immanuel Kant is known for his concept of categorical imperative. To put it simple, it urges a person to follow one’s duty under any circumstances regardless of the additional aspects of the situation (Kant 29). In other words, every action is always treated in the same way which provides a person with some sort of stability when it comes to making a judgment about available option. As has already been noted, the idea of categorical imperative is closely connected to the idea of duty: something that a person out to follow no matter how difficult it may be. The position that is developed by John Stuart Mill is completely different. Just like his German counterpart, he also developed an ethical theory, but it is based on a different concept, namely the greatest happiness principle (Mill 12). According to each, morality of each action should be judged based on the amount of happiness it may bring to the people who are involved in the situation. As one can easily see, this approach heavily relies on the additional circumstances. That is why the same action might be treated differently with regard to the context. So, when it comes to lying Kant will argue that it is always wrong for people to lie, but Mill would assume that if lying is able to bring happiness to the people and the good consequences that it brings outweigh the bad ones, then it is permissible. Of course, it is rather difficult to calculate for sure if the former outnumbers the latter; however a careful consideration might provide a sufficient answer. It is quite obvious that the view which is developed by Mill is far more convincing and persuasive. There are several reasons to that. First of all, the biggest advantage of it is that Mill’s opinion is flexible. Indeed, this means that there will be no problem when it comes to applying this ethical theory into practice. In addition to that, the above mentioned flexibility ensures that people will always find a solution that fits a particular situation, not a standardized one. One would make no mistake suggesting that when people seek ethical guidance, they are willing to make sure that the advice that they get is not general, but was tailored to their circumstances. Secondly, the reason why the view of Mill is more convincing and persuasive focuses on the consequences that are brought up by the actions that he promotes. Indeed, Kant is not interested in other people who are involved in the situation: his main concern is to fulfill the duty; however, Mill strives to make sure that the outcome makes people happy. While the German philosopher also wants to make people happy, the rigorous theory that he designed is likely to upset many, include those who try to adhere to it. Contrary to that, compliance with the views of Mill automatically ensures that the majority of the people will find the outcome pleasant. That is why it would not be a mistake to suggest that the position that is promoted by Mill brings better consequences than the one which is defended by Kant. Finally, one might find that it is much easier to follow the former than the latter. It must be noted that compliance with the theory of categorical imperative inevitably leads to the fact that a person will face many conflicts in the society. The example of lying is just one of them. Thus, according to the above mentioned concept a person will have to tell truth all the time, including situations when this might offend people a lot. Contrary to that, the position that is developed by Mill suggests that there might be circumstances that will ensure that a person will be able to act morally, not offend others and lie. It is understandable that this philosopher does not grant people the right to lie all the time. However, a simple example of a white lie will show the benefits of this view. Kant would strongly oppose to any kind of lying, including a white lie – something that many people would not be comfortable with since they are not willing to have conflicts with others over insignificant things. On the other hand, Mill’s view shows that lying about not essential things to avoid a big conflict is a moral action. So, the majority of the people are likely to adopt this position. As one can easily see on the examples which were brought up in the paragraphs above, the view of Mill on lying is far more convincing and persuasive than the one which is developed by Kant. First of all, it features more flexibility which is quite significant in life of a person. Secondly, it is likely to bring better consequences that compliance with categorical imperative. Finally, it is easier to follow Mills point of view. Works Cited Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Ed. James Wesley Ellington. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1993. Print. Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Ed. George Sher. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2002. Print. Plato. Phaedrus, Apology, Crito, and Symposium. S.L.: Digireads.com, 2010. Print. Read More