Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, and Epicureanism
Utilitarianism
In the first half of the 19th century, a new philosophical movement called utilitarianism emerged in England. This movement advocated a positivist social science, affirming faith in reason and defending the ideals of liberalism and industrialization as the new economic system. However, utilitarianism expressed great concern that early capitalism led to numerous inequalities, injustices, and social and moral problems. As a result, utilitarians believed that society needed to be transformed.
The first prominent utilitarian was Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), followed by his disciple James Mill (1773-1832), and finally, James Mill’s son, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). The utilitarians believed that economic principles were essential for shaping the new society. They were influenced by the positivism of prominent 18th-century economists, such as Adam Smith (1732-1790).
Adam Smith, a figure of the Enlightenment, originated the concept of the economic order of events. This concept suggests that individual economic actions, even when pursued in self-interest, ultimately contribute to the overall good. However, a generation later, Thomas R. Malthus (1766-1864) and David Ricardo (1772-1823) challenged Smith’s view. They argued that progress was not natural or automatic but required moral guidance. Human actions, they believed, must have both a moral and economic order, utilizing scientific principles.
Furthermore, utilitarians recognized the need to improve living conditions and eliminate economic inequalities. They believed that legislators should strive to create laws that maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. This implies that individual interests must be balanced with the overall progress of society. Consequently, utility should govern human conduct.
Initially, utilitarians were heavily influenced by economic principles, quantifying pleasures as the source of happiness. However, they did not prioritize the quality of pleasure, believing that its value was determined by what individuals were willing to pay for it.
Kant’s Ethics vs. J.S. Mill’s Ethics
According to utilitarianism, the binding force or sanction of the principle of utility is a feeling rooted in human sociability, which can be nurtured through education. This suggests that it is empirical and can be acquired. In contrast, Kant argued that moral duty or obligation should not be based on feelings but on reason, as dictated by the moral law. Kant’s postulates of practical reason provide the foundation for duty, whereas J.S. Mill believed in a naturally based feeling that requires cultivation.
This means that Kant proposed a formal ethics (deontological, or duty-based, ethics), while Mill advocated for a material ethics (consequentialist ethics). Kant’s ethics is focused on the form of moral principles, while Mill’s ethics emphasizes the content or consequences of actions, with the supreme good being happiness and pleasure.
Kant considered material ethics to be heteronomous because it relies on sentiment, whereas formal ethics is autonomous because it is based on reason. For Mill, sympathy, cultivated through education, serves as the binding principle of utility. For Kant, the ultimate sanctions are justified through the postulates of practical reason.
Epicurus’ Ethics
The 3rd century BCE was a period of significant political, social, and economic upheaval due to the creation of vast empires following Alexander the Great’s reign. These empires attempted to Hellenize the world, leading to the decline of the polis (city-state) and the emergence of a new type of citizen—a cosmopolitan citizen of a vast empire. This shift resulted in individualism, as individuals, once deeply involved in the political life of the polis, felt lost in the larger empires. Their focus shifted from the common good to satisfying their desires and achieving personal happiness.
Philosophy transitioned from a theoretical pursuit to a practical one, aiming to address four major evils: 1. Fear of the gods, 2. Fear of death or suffering, 3. Unsatisfied desires, 4. Pain. Epicurus divided knowledge into canonical (logic), physical (natural philosophy), and ethical. He considered wisdom, or practical wisdom, to be superior to theoretical knowledge, emphasizing the importance of ethics.
Hedonism
Hedonism is a philosophy that prioritizes individual happiness as the ultimate goal. Humans, endowed with reason and free will, can choose their own path in life. Happiness, according to Epicurus, is achieved through ataraxia (tranquility of the soul or absence of pain) and is linked to the feeling of pleasure, or hedone.
Epicurus believed that actions are morally good if they lead to pleasure and bad if they cause pain. However, as rational beings, humans should calculate the consequences of their actions. A momentary pleasure might lead to subsequent pain, while a momentary pain could result in greater pleasure. This requires careful consideration.
Epicurus advocated for a life of serenity and moderation, focusing on satisfying natural needs. He believed that true pleasure is found in virtue and autonomy, minimizing dependence on external goods. Therefore, Epicurus’ ethics is individualistic, reflecting the trend in vast empires where individuals, feeling lost, prioritize personal happiness and the fulfillment of their needs over the common good.