Kant’s Deontology vs. Utilitarianism & Aristotle’s Soul Theory
Kant’s Critique of Utilitarianism
Immanuel Kant argues that utilitarianism allows for expediency and morally questionable actions to occur and become habitual. He explains that this is problematic because utilitarianism permits moral laws to be broken. Furthermore, he discusses his fundamental issues with the principle of utility and consequentialism.
Kant views that if we strictly follow the principle of utility, there is no possibility of distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures, thereby rendering the “Life of Pigs” argument invalid. The principle of utility, he contends, seems to allow for actions of expediency and justifies immoral actions if they can be performed without negative repercussions. This ultimately permits individuals to act selfishly as long as the actions themselves are not overtly harmful. Utilitarianism, Kant asserts, does not have a robust counter to this argument; instead, it allows for actions that should not be permissible. This can lead to detrimental effects from a series of immoral actions, such as systemic racism.
Utilitarianism, Rights, and Human Dignity
Utilitarianism, according to Kant, fails to account for inalienable rights and the inherent dignity of human beings. When someone suggests they possess rights, one must question their origin, as utilitarianism offers no inherent basis for them. According to utilitarian thought, murder could be deemed acceptable if its consequences are good, completely disregarding the dignity of human life.
Kant fundamentally disagrees with this perspective and advocates for Kantian deontology, which preserves the rights and dignity of all people. His ethical framework is founded on a priori ethical principles and universal laws that everyone can follow. He also believes in transcendental metaphysics, positing that we never perceive the world in itself; it is always filtered through the concepts of understanding.
Reason, Happiness, and the Good Will
Kant continues by explaining the relationship between reason and happiness. He posits that the purpose of reason is to cultivate a good will, not to generate happiness. Reason, he argues, is ill-suited for directly producing happiness. Reason alone, however, allows us to attain a good will. The will, for Kant, is the faculty of choice and the ultimate arbiter of action.
The good will is the only thing that is unqualifiedly good. This forms Kant’s principle of the good: choosing the right action according to universalizable maxims constitutes the moral law, grounded a priori and free from contradiction. The principles of non-contradiction and universality dictate that every immoral action implies a contradictory maxim. A maxim is contradictory, Kant explains, when its universalization would undermine itself or create an impossible state of affairs, or when it implies that others should not follow the same maxim. Kant emphasizes that one should act out of duty. When one acts out of duty, they are acting from the moral principle and are obligated to carry out the good will.
The Categorical Imperative
According to Kant, the principle from which we act morally is the Categorical Imperative. The three formulations of the Categorical Imperative are:
- Act only in such a way that you could want the maxim of your action to become a universal law.
- Act in such a way that you always treat other people not merely as means to some end, but also as ends in themselves.
- Act as such that your maxim could be along the kingdom of ends.
These three formulations demonstrate that actions of expediency are never permissible, as they invariably treat oneself or others merely as means or tools. Such treatment violates their inherent rights and autonomy. To avoid this, Kant asserts that the will is truly good only when it is autonomous. Autonomy, therefore, requires acting from the Categorical Imperative and behaving in a way that reflects duty. By acting out of duty, one genuinely manifests a good will.
Aristotle’s Account of the Soul
In Aristotle’s account of the soul, he discusses substance. He describes substance as any fundamental, living entity. He then categorizes substance into three components: matter, form, and the hylomorphic complex. Matter represents potentiality, form represents actuality, and the hylomorphic complex is the combination of matter and form. From these categories, Aristotle derives his first definition of the soul.
The first definition states that the soul is the form of a natural body possessing potentiality for life. In this initial definition, Aristotle identifies the soul as actuality.
Hierarchy of Potentiality to Actuality
Building on this, Aristotle employs the Hierarchy of Potentiality to Actuality to further elucidate substance and the soul. The hierarchy comprises four levels:
- No Potentiality: Lacks the capacity to perform a specific action.
- Potentiality: Possesses the capacity to perform an action in the future.
- First Actuality: Possesses both the potential and capacity to perform an action, but is not currently engaged in it.
- Second Actuality: Is actively performing the task it has the potential to execute.
For instance, a baby has the potential to learn geometry, but a plant does not. A sleeping mathematician possesses the first actuality of knowing geometry, while a mathematician actively solving a problem demonstrates second actuality.
Definitions of the Soul
This hierarchy allows us to derive the second and third definitions of the soul.
The second definition of the soul is that it is the first actuality of a natural body that is potentially alive. A body is considered ‘potentially alive’ because it possesses all the inherent capabilities and organs to be a functioning living being.
This concept is further elaborated in the third definition. The third definition of the soul states that it is the first actuality of a natural, organic body; meaning, it is an organized body containing organs capable of carrying out specific functions.