If your only two options for a moral theory are utilitarianism or Kantianism, which one would you pick and why? In other words, make an argument defending one or the other. You’ll need to be sure to work with course material and to consider objections. In addition, since you’re arguing why is better than the other you’ll need to display an understanding of both moral theories.
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Choosing Utilitarianism Over Kantianism: A Defense
Introduction
Moral philosophy often presents us with various frameworks for evaluating ethical dilemmas. Among the most prominent theories are utilitarianism and Kantianism. Utilitarianism, founded by philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, posits that the moral worth of an action is determined by its contribution to overall happiness or utility. In contrast, Kantianism, developed by Immanuel Kant, emphasizes duty and the categorical imperative, arguing that actions are morally right if they can be universally applied as a moral law. While both theories have their merits, I argue that utilitarianism provides a more practical and flexible approach to morality than Kantianism. This essay will outline the strengths of utilitarianism, address potential objections, and highlight the limitations of Kantianism.
Understanding Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory, meaning it evaluates actions based on their outcomes. The central tenet of utilitarianism is the “greatest happiness principle,” which asserts that the best action is the one that maximizes happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people. Key aspects of utilitarianism include:
– Aggregate Welfare: Utilitarianism considers the well-being of all affected individuals, aiming for the greatest good for the largest number.
– Flexibility: The theory allows for adaptability in decision-making since it focuses on outcomes rather than rigid rules.
– Pragmatism: Utilitarianism encourages a practical approach to ethics, making it relevant in real-world decision-making.
Understanding Kantianism
Kantianism is deontological in nature, suggesting that moral actions are grounded in duty and adherence to universal moral laws rather than the consequences of those actions. Key elements of Kantian ethics include:
– Categorical Imperative: Kant’s central principle asserts that one should act only according to that maxim which can be willed as a universal law. In other words, individuals should only take actions that they would want everyone to take.
– Moral Absolutism: Kantianism emphasizes absolute moral duties that must be adhered to regardless of the consequences. Lying, for instance, is always wrong, even if lying could lead to better outcomes.
Argument for Utilitarianism
1. Focus on Outcomes and Well-Being
One significant advantage of utilitarianism is its focus on outcomes and the well-being of individuals. In practical terms, this means evaluating actions based on their consequences rather than adhering to potentially arbitrary rules. For example, consider a scenario where telling a lie might prevent significant harm to another person. A utilitarian approach would justify the lie if it maximizes overall happiness and reduces suffering.
In contrast, Kantianism would categorically reject this lie based on the principle that lying is inherently wrong. This rigidity can lead to morally questionable outcomes where adherence to duty results in greater harm or suffering.
2. Flexibility in Ethical Decision-Making
Utilitarianism’s inherent flexibility allows individuals to adapt their moral reasoning to specific contexts. This adaptability is crucial in complex situations where rigid rules may not apply effectively. For instance, in public health policies, utilitarian principles can guide decisions like allocating resources during a pandemic to maximize overall societal benefit.
Kantianism, on the other hand, often struggles with such complexities due to its strict adherence to universal moral laws. The rigidity may lead to morally untenable positions, particularly in cases where following a rule results in greater harm.
3. Promoting Altruism and Social Responsibility
Utilitarianism promotes a sense of altruism and social responsibility by encouraging individuals to consider the collective well-being of society. This perspective fosters empathy and compassion toward others, as individuals must weigh their actions’ impact on overall happiness.
In contrast, Kantianism can lead to a more self-centered approach where individuals prioritize their duties over the well-being of others. This focus on individual duty may not always align with promoting social harmony or addressing societal issues effectively.
Addressing Objections to Utilitarianism
1. The Problem of Justice
One common objection to utilitarianism is that it may justify actions that violate individual rights or justice in pursuit of greater happiness. Critics argue that utilitarian calculations could lead to morally reprehensible outcomes, such as sacrificing one individual for the benefit of many.
Response
While this objection raises valid concerns, it is essential to recognize that utilitarianism can incorporate considerations of justice into its framework. Many modern utilitarians advocate for a version called “rule utilitarianism,” which suggests that we should adopt rules that generally promote happiness and well-being. This approach reconciles concerns about individual rights with the broader goal of maximizing overall utility.
2. Measurement of Happiness
Another objection is the challenge of measuring happiness or utility accurately. Critics argue that subjective experiences make it difficult to quantify happiness across individuals.
Response
While measuring happiness presents challenges, utilitarianism can still provide valuable guidance in ethical decision-making by focusing on observable consequences and general trends in well-being. Moreover, various approaches exist (such as surveys and psychological studies) that can help gauge societal welfare and inform decisions.
Addressing Objections to Kantianism
While defending utilitarianism, it is also important to highlight some limitations of Kantianism:
1. Rigid Morality
Kantian ethics often leads to rigid moral judgments without consideration for context or consequences. This rigidity can result in situations where adhering strictly to moral duties can lead to harm or suffering—such as refusing to lie about a dangerous situation for fear of violating the moral law.
2. Lack of Practical Application
Kant’s emphasis on universalizability may be impractical in many real-world scenarios where moral dilemmas do not lend themselves to clear-cut rules. The complexity of human experiences often requires nuanced ethical reasoning that rigid rules cannot accommodate.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both utilitarianism and Kantianism offer valuable insights into ethical decision-making, I argue that utilitarianism provides a more practical and adaptable framework for evaluating moral dilemmas. Its focus on outcomes and societal well-being encourages compassion and empathy while allowing for flexibility in complex situations. While concerns about justice and measurement exist within utilitarian thought, they can be addressed through modern adaptations such as rule utilitarianism. Ultimately, embracing a utilitarian perspective allows for a more inclusive and pragmatic approach to morality in an increasingly interconnected world.
