Kant: Fairness, Justice, Autonomy and Respect

Kant believes we have duties that we must follow regardless of whether it creates happiness or not. This view is irrespective of consequences. Kant's thinking seems to lead one towards concepts of justice, fairness, autonomy, and respect. Essentially, these are concepts, which are supposed to ensure everyone has their life, liberty and so forth. This seems appealing, because it is the opposite to saying that it's fine to exploit people or cause them suffering if it makes everyone else happy (a view that the utilitarian’s would uphold). 



Additionally, Kant advances the idea of a categorical imperative. Essentially, what Kant's Categorical Imperative says is 'act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law'. Therefore, actions are good only if they can be universalized. For example, you couldn't argue that lying become a universal law because talking is pointless if you don't do it to communicate truth, plus a rational agent is unable to logically will something that defeats their own rationality, like for example being lied to. What is essentially being advanced is the golden rule…do unto others as you would like them doing unto you.

Overall however, Kant believed that only actions that result out of one’s good will could be considered morally praiseworthy.

Recently, there was a controversy in the media regarding a jurors comment about the controversial Florida "loud music" trial where the juror says that there was no chance from the start of a murder conviction in the shooting of an unarmed teen at a gas station because several jurors were convinced Michael Dunn acted in self-defense. (more information about the case may be found at: http://abcnews.go.com/US/juror-loud-music-trial-wanted-murder-conviction/story?id=22571068). As I read further into the article, I learned that allegedly, Dunn was bothered by the loud music being played in the car that was parked next to his in a gas station and decided to ask that the people inside of the vehicle turn it down. I’d like to explore whether it was wrong for Dunn to be bothered by the loud music being played by the teenager, and nothing beyond this matter. It seems that on Kant’s view, if everyone were to go around playing his or her music too loudly, it would cause chaos in society. It seems that people would have a hard time communicating, and those that wanted peace and quiet, would not be able to attain it. This seems like a violation of someone’s autonomy, and just seems like an unfair and disrespectful action to partake in if a person does not like loud music. However, if the person playing the loud music would like this to be done to him or her, then it does not seem wrong that he engages in this behavior- as he is doing what he would like others to do to him. It seems that by Kant’s view we can say that it was not wrong for Dunn to be bothered, as someone was not doing unto him as he does unto others. Also however, it does not seem wrong that the loud music player plays his music loudly if he would like this action to be done unto him. It seems that Kant's theory runs into problems when we explore an issue like this one.

Consequentialism

According to Shafer-Landau, consequentaimlism says that an action is morally required just because it produces the best overall results, and advances a five step process that is supposed to determine whether an act produces the best overall results. The five step process is the following: 

"1. First, identify what is intrinsically good-valuable in and of itself, and worth having for its own sake.
  2. Identify what is intrinsically bad.
  3. Determine all of your options. Which actions are open to you at the moment?
  4. For, each option, determine the value of it's results. How much of what is intrinsically good will each action bring about? How much of what is intrinsically bad?
 5. Finally, pick the action that yields the best balance- the highest ratio of good to bad results." (119).

Accordingly, I want to examine which action is morally required in the following situation:

In the article Bullying May Have Lasting Health Effects on Kids, author Amy Norton discusses new findings, which indicate that bullying has been shown to have detrimental effects on young children that stay with them as they age. These effects sometimes may even cause "low mental well-being" later on in life. 

These findings led me to wonder…

Is it morally required for schools to have anti-bullying policies?

It seems that if we want to determine whether this action is morally required just because it produces the best overall results, then we must determine this by way of the five step process.

1.  What is intrinsically good-valuable in and of itself? At this point, it is my opinion that good mental well-being (i.e., happiness) is intrinsically good.
2. What is intrinsically bad? If it is the case that happiness is intrinsically good, then it would seem to me that sadness (i.e., low mental well-being) is intrinsically bad- as it is the opposite of happiness.
3. The options in this case would be to either:
                       a. require for schools to have anti-bullying policies
or
                       b. not require for schools to have anti-bullying policies.
4. For, each option, determine the value of it's results. How much of what is intrinsically good will each action bring about? How much of what is intrinsically bad?
-It seems that option A would not necessarily bring about happiness, but it could bring about some. It could also bring about sadness as the bullies would be prevented/punished for doing something that they enjoy doing.
In regards, to option B, it seems that taking this route would certainly bring about a lot of sadness as bullying would still be acceptable and so we run a higher risk of having more sadness or low mental well being produced. However, this might bring about some happiness in bullies who enjoy engaging in such behavior and would have the opportunity to continue to bully.
5. It seems that the action that would yield the best balance of good to bad results would be option A because while the bullies would be sad for a while, this sadness would only be temporary. While allowing bullying to persist has been shown to cause detrimental and on-going sadness in the victims of bullying seemingly bringing about a lot more of what is intrinsically bad.

In this case it seems that that the consequentialist would say that is it morally required for schools to have anti-bullying policies.

Does Preference-Hedonism=Desire Satisfaction Theory?

Derek Parfait, the author of What Makes Someone's Life Go Best, mentions in his writing that what pains and pleasures have in common are their relations to our desires. More specifically he says that pains are unwanted experiences, and that pains are worse or greater the more they are unwanted. Similarly, all pleasures are when experience wanted, and they are better or greater the more they are wanted. Specifically, these are the claims Parfait associates with Preference-Hedonism. 

On the other hand, he also describes another theory. The Desire Satisfaction Theory. More specifically, he discusses a version of the desire satisfaction theory called the Success Theory. He argues that the success theory and preference-hedonism do in fact differ, but that they differ in only one way. The way they differ according to Parfit is that the success theory appeals to all of our preferences about our own lives while preference-hedonism appeals only to preferences about those present features of our lives that are introspectively discernible.
The claims made by Parfait made be want to take a closer look at the two theories. Let's consider these theories in the context of something that was recently in the U.S. headlines. In early February 2014, there was an outrage over the move on the part of a Danish zoo to kill a healthy giraffe, and feed it to the lions (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/09/world/europe/denmark-zoo-giraffe/). The director of the Danish zoo explained that the zoo would euthanize the male giraffe named Marius because of a duty to avoid inbreeding. The giraffe's impending death had sparked outrage online, with more than 27,000 people signing a "Save Marius" petition, appealing for a last-minute change of heart. The petition was denied, and Marius was executed. 

This led me to wonder if this event makes the 27,000 people who signed the petition and who really wanted for Marius to not be executed worse off?

Through the lens of a Preference-Hedonist: It seems that on this view, depending on the extent to which the person did not want Marius killed, this pain or unwanted experience makes that person worse off to the extent that the experience of Marius being executed was unwanted. However, if this person heard about the petition, signed it, and then never followed up, and never found out Marius was in fact executed, then they are not worse off from the event having had occurred. 

Through the lens of a Success Theorist: The lives of all 27,000 people are worse off as a cause of the event of Marius being executed having occurred. This would be true whether or not they know Marius was killed because of their desire of Marius being saved, not having been fulfilled. 

Conclusion: While at a glance, the success theory and preference-hedonsim seem to be the same exact thing, it seems that when they are put into context, these two theories turn out to be completely different and the distinction becomes all the more evident as we can see in the above mentioned examples!

On Hedonism, The Desire Satisfaction Theory and The Objective List Theory

What is good? What does it mean to live a good life or to be well off? Does one single standard exist for everyone? I am not sure that I have a satisfactory answer to either one of these questions at the current moment. However, this does not worry me as I am excited to begin to think about the possibilities of whether there is or is not a good life, and if there is, what it means to live the good life as opposed to a bad one.

Whether you believe that you are living the good life already, or would like to know how to go about living the good life, or maybe you are indifferent- whatever the case may be, feel free to join me as I dive into a journey of contemplation. Maybe we'll find the answers to our questions. Maybe we won't. However, what I do know is that if we attempt to reflect more closely on what sort of life is worth living, then we will learn more, and therefore know more. We will surely learn more about the possibilities of what a good life could entail. To me, this only means being closer to figuring out what we ought to do to live the life that would ultimately make us best off. The idea of achieving this seems to make the contemplation and journey as a whole worthwhile. It may be the case that you find that you were already living the good life. If so, this journey could result in validation. 

Whatever the case may be, this blog will serve as a venue for growth. Also, it will serve as a venue for me to discuss my thoughts about the texts I will be reading in looking to learn more about the essential ideas of moral philosophy.

The first view I am going to talk about is Hedonism.

Do you believe that a life is good to the extent that it is filled with pleasure and is free of pain? If so, consider yourself a hedonist from this point forward.

A little more about your view:

In essence, hedonists believe that happiness is the only thing in life that is valuable all by itself. Everything else is valuable only to the extent that is makes us happy.

Furthermore, they believe that happiness or in other words attitudinal and not physical enjoyment is the key to the good life.

Do you still agree?

Pros:

-Not a cookie cutter approach as there are various recipes for the good life.

-Hedonism is more of a middle path approach.

-Explanation? “Because it makes me happy!”

Cons:

-Can it be proved that happiness is truly the be-all and end-all of a good life?

-The Paradox of Hedonism

-Argument from Evil Pleasures

-Two Worlds Argument

-Argument from False Happiness

-Argument from Autonomy

-Trajectory Argument

-Argument from Multiple Harms

As I look at the lists above, I realize that the list of cons is larger than the list of pros. This is because there have been many who have found it difficult to accept the assumptions that hedonists make about the good life.

However, not all of the arguments against Hedonism are good one’s and even the one’s that are still don’t completely disprove Hedonism. This allows for the view to live on, and have its many fans. Still, it seems that because Hedonists are not able to prove that happiness is the only thing in the world that is intrinsically valuable, it is difficult to completely buy into the view that happiness is the only key to the good life.

In contrast, the desire satisfaction theory is an alternate view which says that your life goes well for you to the extent that you get what you want. So, something is good for you if it satisfies your desires, only if it satisfies your desires and because it satisfies your desires.


Your life goes badly just when your desires are frustrated.

Nothing can make your life better unless it gets you what you want.

On this view, because people desire different things, there can be a wide variety of good lives, and in addition people have a huge amount of freedom to choose their own vision of a good life. The only limitation is that the good life must consist of satisfied desires. What the desires are for however, is completely up to the person.

While the desire theory and Hedonism both have their upsides, there are also some issues that they do not stand up well to. I mentioned above some of the arguments against Hedonism, and next you will find some of what I think are the most challenging arguments for desire satisfaction theories:

-The Success Theory (it only matters that desires about one's own life be fulfilled for that person to be better off or more well off)
-Ignorance of Desire Satisfaction
-The Paradox of Self-Harm and Self- Sacrifice
-The fallibility of Our Deepest Desires

While the above mentioned are not the only arguments against the desire satisfaction theory, they are the one's that most cause the theory to look suspect. And because of this, getting what we want simply does not seem to be an essential part of the good life. This leaves us with one more theory to examine, for now at least…..


The Objective List Theory: On this view certain things are good or bad for people, whether or not these people would want to have the good things, or to avoid the bad things.

While the two theories mentioned above seem to give an account of self-interest and appeal to what a person does and would prefer, given full knowledge of the purely non-evaluative facts about the alternatives…The Objective List Theory seems to appeal directly to facts about value.

It is hard to say which theories we should accept but it might be easier to better explore them if we apply them to a recent story in the news:

In the article Super Bowl Tickets Are a Bargain at More Than $2,000 (http://nyti.ms/MLii6h) Ken Belson discusses the recent phenomenon associated with one of America's favorite sporting event, the Super Bowl. This phenomenon became all the more apparent especially when there was a decline in asking prices for tickets to the game. Belson highlights that the average asking price for a ticket was $2,645.12 on February 1, 2014, which is 34 percent less than on Jan. 19. This led me to wonder whether the person who bought their ticket on January 19, 2014 (I'll call him Fred), provided he never found out that there was a decline in the price of tickets, would be worse off than a person who bought their ticket on Febuary 1, 2014 (I'll call her Mary)? For our purposes we will say that Mary was also not aware that there was a change of price either. Ignoring any other circumstances, if both Fred and Mary were both equally satisfied with their purchases of essentially the same ticket when they bought them, then wouldn't this mean that both of their lives are equally well off? It seems that we could consider this through three different perspectives: 

Through a hedonist lens: On this view, it seems that what Mary and Fred are equally well off seeing as their purchases brought them happiness and did not cause them any harm that they are aware of. While Fred might have enjoyed the tickets more if he had waited 11 days to purchase it, he does not know this, and provided he is and continues to be ignorant of this, then the price change will not affect his level of happiness. The same logic would apply in Mary's case. The tickets might have brought Mary more enjoyment if she had know she got them for a great bargain, but being that she is ignorant to the recent phenomenon associated with Super Bowl ticket prices, she is still reaping as much enjoyment from the tickets as is Fred, and therefore they seem to be equally well off. 

Through a desire satisfaction theorist lens: On this view, both Mary and Fred would be equally well off if their desires where satisfied. If they got the tickets they wanted and were able to attend the big game, then it seems that their desires were satisfied. If it is the case that either Fred or Mary, or both of them wanted tickets at a different price but were not able to get them at the price they desired to have them, then it seems that their desires were not satisfied, and therefore they are not as well off as they could be. On the desire satisfaction theory's view, it seems that the aforementioned is true whether they are ignorant to it or not. 

Through an objective list theorist lens: On this view it depends on what would be considered as bad or good for someone. Something is undesired because it is bad for them, and things are desired because they are good for them. If Mary and Fred desired the ticket to the big game it is because they figured these tickets, and thus attending the Super Bowl would be good for them. Therefore, it seems that regardless of the price change, if Mary and Fred made a conscious decision to buy the tickets to the game at whatever price they decided to purchase them, it is because they believed these tickets to be good for them. It being the case that they both got the tickets they wanted thinking the purchasing of these tickets would be good for them, it seems that they are both equally well off if they both got what they wanted.