BURGOS, DEEWEE M

BSOA 3-1D
ACTIVITY 8: FINAL ASSESSMENT
1Kant's Moral Imperative as a Guide to Ethical Decisions
a) Suicide
When applying this to suicide, Kant would argue that the act cannot be morally
justified. If the maxim "it is acceptable to end one's life to escape suffering" were
universalized, it would undermine the value of life itself. Everyone, in times of hardship,
might consider ending their lives, leading to a society where life is not inherently valued or
preserved. Kant believed that life has intrinsic worth and that individuals have a duty to
preserve it.
Thus, suicide is seen as a violation of the moral law because it treats one's life as a
mere means to escape suffering, rather than as an end in itself. Kant's moral imperative,
particularly the categorical imperative, provides a clear framework for evaluating the
morality of suicide. The categorical imperative states that one should only act according to
maxims that can be universally applied. This means that before committing an action, one
should consider whether it could be consistently willed as a universal law.
Furthermore, Kant emphasized the importance of rationality and duty. By committing
suicide, one is neglecting their duties to themselves and to others. It is a decision that
prioritizes personal relief over the responsibilities and relationships that one has. Therefore,
according to Kantian ethics, suicide is not a morally permissible action as it fails the test of
universality and disregards the inherent value of human life.
b) Theft
Kant would argue that theft is inherently wrong because it cannot be consistently
willed as a universal law. If everyone stole, the institution of ownership would collapse,
making it impossible for anyone to securely own anything.
This would create an unsustainable and disorderly society, which contradicts the
rational structure that Kant believes moral laws should support. In the context of theft, Kant's
categorical imperative again serves as a robust moral guide. The principle asks whether the
maxim "it is acceptable to take what does not belong to you" can be universalized. If
everyone were to act on this principle, the concept of personal property would be
meaningless, leading to chaos and distrust within society.
Additionally, Kantian ethics emphasize treating others as ends in themselves and not
merely as means to an end. When someone steals, they are using another person merely as a
means to gain an object or benefit, which disregards the other's rights and autonomy. This is
fundamentally disrespectful to the inherent dignity of individuals, which Kant's moral
philosophy aims to uphold.
Therefore, theft is morally impermissible according to Kant's moral imperative. It fails the
test of universalize and violates the principle of respecting others as autonomous individuals.
Kant's ethics demand that we respect the rights and properties of others, maintaining trust and
order within society.
c) Lying
Kant believed that truthfulness is a fundamental duty we owe to others. When we lie,
we treat others as mere means to our own ends, manipulating them to achieve our goals. This
action disregards their right to make informed decisions based on truthful information, which
violates the principle of respecting others as ends in themselves.
Kant's view on lying is one of the most stringent in ethical philosophy. According to
the categorical imperative, the maxim "it is acceptable to lie" cannot be universalized without
leading to contradictions. If everyone lied, communication would break down, and trust
would be impossible. This would render promises and agreements meaningless.
Furthermore, lying undermines the very foundation of social interaction. If lying were
universalized, no one could trust another person's word, leading to a breakdown in social
cohesion and cooperation. This would result in a dysfunctional society where mutual
understanding and agreements are impossible. Thus, from a Kantian perspective, lying is
always morally wrong. It cannot be justified under any circumstances because it fails the
verbalization test and disrespects the autonomy and dignity of others. Kant's ethics emphasize
the importance of honesty and integrity, which are crucial for maintaining trust and social
order.
d) Borrowing Without the Capacity to Pay Back
Kant's categorical imperative also addresses the morality of borrowing without the
intention or ability to pay back. The maxim "it is acceptable to borrow money without the
intention of repaying it" cannot be universalized. If everyone adopted this maxim, the concept
of lending would collapse, as no one would trust borrowers to repay their debts. Borrowing
money carries an implicit promise to repay. By failing to honor this promise, an individual
undermines the trust that is essential for financial transactions and relationships. This action
treats the lender as a means to an end, exploiting their trust and resources for personal gain
without regard for their rights and interests.
Kantian ethics demand that we act according to principles that respect others and can
be universally applied. Borrowing without the capacity or intention to repay is inherently
deceitful and exploitative. It violates the principle of treating others with respect and fairness,
as it places the burden of loss on the lender while the borrower benefits unfairly. Therefore,
from a Kantian perspective, borrowing without the ability to repay is morally impermissible.
It fails the test of overspecialization, disrespects the autonomy of the lender, and undermines
the trust that is fundamental to social and financial interactions. Kant's ethics emphasize the
importance of honesty, responsibility, and respect for others in all our actions.
2 What is the —principle of utility? In what respects is Mill's conception of
Utilitarianism different from that of Bentham?

The Principle of Utility and Differences Between Mill's and Bentham's Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, introduced a quantitative approach to
this principle. He believed that happiness and pleasure could be measured and compared
using what he called the "hedonic calculus." This method considered factors like intensity,
duration, certainty, and extent of pleasure or pain to determine the best course of action.
Bentham did not distinguish between different types of pleasure; all were considered equal.
His version of utilitarianism, often termed act utilitarianism, evaluates each individual action
based on its capacity to produce pleasure or pain, treating all pleasures as quantitatively equal.
The principle of utility, also known as the "greatest happiness principle," is the foundation of
utilitarian ethical theory. It asserts that the morally right action is the one that maximizes
overall happiness or pleasure and minimizes overall pain or suffering. This principle
evaluates the moral worth of actions based on their consequences, aiming to produce the
greatest net benefit for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism, therefore, is a
consequential theory, meaning that the outcomes of actions are the primary basis for any
moral judgment.
John Stuart Mill, a later proponent of utilitarianism, refined and expanded upon
Bentham's ideas, introducing a qualitative dimension to the principle of utility. Mill argued
that not all pleasures are equal and that higher (intellectual and moral) pleasures are more
valuable than lower (bodily) pleasures. He suggested that people who have experienced both
types of pleasure would naturally prefer higher pleasures, which contribute more significantly
to human happiness. This qualitative distinction is a crucial divergence from Bentham's
approach. Additionally, Mill's utilitarianism leans more towards rule utilitarianism rather than
act utilitarianism. Instead of evaluating the morality of each action in isolation, Mill
advocated for following general rules that tend to promote the greatest happiness when
adhered to over time. This approach considers the long-term consequences of maintaining
certain principles, such as honesty or justice, which ultimately contribute to overall well-
being.
Mill also placed a stronger emphasis on individual rights and human dignity. He
argued that protecting certain rights and freedoms is essential for achieving the greatest
happiness, adding a layer of complexity to the utilitarian calculus. For Mill, respecting
individual liberties and promoting higher pleasures are integral to maximizing overall
happiness, reflecting a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of utility compared to
Bentham's more straightforward, quantitative approach. In summary, while both Bentham and
Mill advocate for the principle of utility, their interpretations differ significantly. Bentham's
utilitarianism is quantitative, treating all pleasures equally and focusing on individual actions.
Mill's version is qualitative, emphasizing higher pleasures, rule-following, and the
importance of individual rights. These differences make Mill's utilitarianism a more complex
and comprehensive ethical theory.
3. In the context of Greek philosophy, what is meant by —virtue?

The Relevance of Mill's Utilitarianism in Contemporary Society

One of the primary strengths of Mill's utilitarianism is its qualitative distinction

between higher and lower pleasures. Mill argues that intellectual and moral pleasures are
superior to mere physical pleasures. In our times, this distinction can help prioritize policies
and actions that enhance overall well-being beyond mere material satisfaction. For instance,
investing in education, mental health, and cultural activities can yield deeper, more lasting
happiness for individuals and communities. John Stuart Mill's utilitarian doctrine, with its
emphasis on the greatest happiness principle, remains highly relevant and valuable in
contemporary society. Mill's approach, which refines and expands upon Jeremy Bentham's
original utilitarianism, offers a nuanced ethical framework that can guide decision-making in
a complex, modern world.

Moreover, Mill's consideration of individual rights and human dignity adds a crucial
dimension to utilitarian ethics. In a world where issues like privacy, freedom of speech, and
social justice are increasingly prominent, Mill's insistence on protecting individual liberties is
essential. His perspective encourages us to balance the pursuit of overall happiness with the
need to respect and uphold individual rights, thus fostering a more just and equitable society.
Mill's emphasis on rule utilitarianism, which advocates for following general principles that
typically promote the greatest happiness, is particularly relevant today. This approach
provides a stable foundation for ethical decision-making and supports the development of just
and fair institutions. For example, principles such as respect for human rights, justice, and
equality are crucial in ensuring the well-being of all individuals. By adhering to these rules,
societies can create environments where people can thrive and live harmoniously.

In conclusion, Mill's utilitarian doctrine holds significant value for our times. Its
qualitative approach to happiness, emphasis on rule-following, and respect for individual
rights offer a comprehensive ethical framework that can address the complexities of modern
life. By applying Mill's principles, we can strive towards a more balanced, just, and happy
society. In practical terms, Mill's utilitarianism can guide contemporary policy-making and
personal conduct. It encourages a focus on the common good, prompting leaders and
individuals to consider the broader impact of their actions. Whether addressing climate
change, healthcare, or economic inequality, the utilitarian doctrine of maximizing happiness
while respecting individual rights provides a valuable ethical compass.
4. What differences exist between Aristotle's golden mean and an absolute mean?
Provide illustrations which make the contrast clear.

Differences Between Aristotle's Golden Mean and an Absolute Mean

Aristotle's concept of the golden mean and the idea of an absolute mean represent contrasting
approaches to ethics, particularly in how they define and apply moderation and virtue.

Aristotle's Golden Mean:

Aristotle's golden mean is a principle that guides ethical behavior by advocating for
moderation between extremes. According to Aristotle, virtue is found in the mean between
two vices: deficiency and excess. For example, courage, as a virtue, lies between the
extremes of cowardice (deficiency) and rashness (excess). The exact midpoint or mean varies
depending on circumstances, personal disposition, and cultural norms. Aristotle emphasizes
that the golden mean is not a rigid, fixed point but a balanced state that takes into account
individual differences and situational contexts. This flexibility allows for a nuanced
understanding of virtue, encouraging individuals to cultivate habits that promote well-being
and harmony in specific situations.

Illustration of Aristotle's Golden Mean:

Consider the virtue of honesty. In Aristotle's framework, honesty is the mean between the
vices of deceitfulness (deficiency) and blunt insensitivity (excess). A person who lies
excessively lacks integrity and undermines trust, while someone who is excessively blunt
may hurt others unnecessarily. The honest person, according to Aristotle, speaks truthfully
with tact and consideration for others' feelings, finding the balance between honesty and
kindness appropriate to each situation.

Absolute Mean:

In contrast to Aristotle's approach, an absolute mean posits a fixed standard of moderation

that applies universally, regardless of context or individual differences. This approach
suggests that there is an objectively correct amount or measure of virtue that everyone should
adhere to. It implies a uniformity in ethical standards that does not account for the
complexities of human nature or the diversity of circumstances people face.

Illustration of an Absolute Mean:

Imagine a scenario where temperance is viewed as an absolute mean that prescribes a specific
quantity of food or drink that all individuals should consume daily to maintain health. Such a
rigid standard fails to consider factors like metabolism, nutritional needs, and personal
preferences. It imposes a uniform guideline that may not be practical or beneficial for
everyone, potentially leading to health issues for some and unnecessary restrictions for others.

Aristotle's golden mean provides a nuanced and flexible approach to ethics, encouraging
individuals to find the virtuous mean that is appropriate to their circumstances and personal
characteristics. In contrast, an absolute mean imposes a fixed standard of moderation that
overlooks the complexity of human experiences and the variability of ethical situations.
Aristotle's emphasis on moderation as a balance between extremes allows for a more
adaptable and practical application of ethical principles in real-life scenarios, promoting
individual flourishing and social harmony.

5. In what respects do the ethical theories of Plato and Aristotle stand in sharp contrast?
In what respects are they alike?

Comparing the Ethical Theories of Plato and Aristotle

Plato and Aristotle, two of the most influential philosophers in Western thought, have
ethical theories that both contrast sharply and share similarities. Their differing views reflect
their unique approaches to understanding virtue, morality, and the good life. One of the
primary differences lies in their views on the nature of reality and its relation to ethics. Plato's
ethics are rooted in his Theory of Forms, where he posits that there are perfect, immutable
forms or ideals that exist in a realm beyond the physical world. According to Plato, the Form
of the Good is the highest and most important, serving as the ultimate standard for morality.
To live ethically, one must understand and align oneself with these perfect forms, especially
the Form of the Good. This understanding is achieved through philosophical reasoning and
the guidance of a philosopher-king, who, having knowledge of the forms, can lead others
towards a virtuous life.
In contrast, Aristotle rejects Plato's Theory of Forms and instead focuses on the
empirical world. Aristotle's ethics are grounded in his concept of teleology, which asserts that
everything in nature has a purpose or end (telos). For humans, the telos is achieving
eudaimonia, often translated as happiness or flourishing. Aristotle believes that virtue is
found in the golden mean, the balance between extremes of excess and deficiency. Virtuous
living involves practical wisdom (phronesis) and the cultivation of good habits, allowing
individuals to achieve their potential and live fulfilling lives within their communities.
Despite these differences, there are significant similarities between the two
philosophers. Both Plato and Aristotle emphasize the importance of virtue in achieving the
good life. They agree that ethical behavior is not merely about following rules but about
developing a good character. Moreover, both philosophers see reason as essential to ethical
living. For Plato, reason allows individuals to apprehend the forms, while for Aristotle,
reason helps people discern the mean and make wise decisions.
In conclusion, while Plato and Aristotle have distinct approaches to ethics—Plato
focusing on transcendent forms and Aristotle on empirical observation and practical
wisdom—they both underscore the importance of virtue and reason in leading a good and
fulfilling life. Their contributions continue to shape ethical thinking, highlighting the
enduring relevance of their ideas.