This book notes many methods of applied ethics like Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism:
“The principle of utility instructs us that when we are faced with a moral decision, the right action is the one that does most to maximize what Bentham calls utility. In Bentham’s theory, utility is understood first in terms of happiness and then as the balance of pleasure over pain.” (Wolff, 2021, 171)
Basically, it’s about maximizing pleasure for for the world while minimizing pain. The theory, however, does reject malevolent pleasure, which is important:
“He distinguished many varieties of pleasure: from the relatively innocence, including the pleasures of sense (such as enjoying the fragrance of a rose), to the much more questionable, such as the pleasures of being malevolent. Malevolent pleasures are easy targets- would we really agree that the world is a better place if people take pleasure in the misfortune of others, for example, cheering up when hearing that someone they dislike has been injured in a car crash?” (Wolff, 2021, 178)
However, Kant’s theory of Deontology sounds better:
“Many of us are used to checking our actions against the dictum “What if everyone did that?” (Wolff, 2021, 226)
“With the categorical imperative, Kant offers us a more dramatic and rigorous version of this idea. He is asking you to suppose that, as a result of your action, you made it true that everyone, from now on, would do just what you did in the exact same circumstances. This is what Kant means when he asks us to imagine than an action be transformed into a maxim of action, a principle or rule to live by.” (Wolff, 2021, 227)
Here are two examples of how that can be applied:
“Suppose that you’re in a difficult situation and you try to extricate yourself by making a promise you can’t keep. If we apply Kant’s principle, you now must imagine that simply by making your false promise, you have generated a universal law: that anyone in a difficult situation is perfectly permitted to make a false promise. But, Kant argues, such a world- one in which a false promise is acceptable could not even exist, because promise-keeping depends on general conventions of reliability. To work at all, a false promise must be the exception, not the rule” (Wolff, 2021, 227).
“Kant accepts that a maxim of this sort (‘don’t help others’) can be universalized- it contains no logical contradiction- but the problem is that the universalization cannot be willed. For I might find myself needing the help of others, and would naturally will my own preservation; but a universal law of non-contribution would allow others to ignore me if they chose to. Therefore, Kant argues, my will would be in conflict with itself” (Wolff, 2021, 242-243).
While there are examples of Kant’s logic I do not agree with:
“In a short essay entitled ‘On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns’ (1797), Kant discusses the case of someone who is confronted at his door by a murderer intending to kill a person who is hiding in the house. The murderer asks whether the potential victim is there” (Wolff, 2021, 257).
“Kant does not approve of the idea that the murderer has no right to the truth. Telling a lie harms humanity as a whole, not just the murderer, by weakening the practice of truth-telling. So, perhaps you can avoid both the truth and the lie- some will think the correct response might be simply to refuse to say anything. But why not just lie? Kant also argues that telling a lie could backfire: suppose you tell the murderer that the person is not there, but, unknown to you, he has slipped out of the house. If the murderer leaves the house and finds the person in the street, then through your lie ‘you may be justly accused as having caused his death'” (Wolff, 2021, 257).
“Kant appeared to believe that only white males were fully capable of the level of rationality that made them full moral subjects. For example, he explicitly denied that women should have the vote, on the the grounds that they lack economic self-sufficiency” (Wolff, 2021, 264).
“Kant believed in a natural hierarchy of races, with white Europeans at the top and other races ordered below. We saw that Mill held a similar view, although he believed the situation was temporary and that we could eventually achieve full racial equality. Underlying Mill’s view of differences in achievement, there seems to be a commitment to the ultimate moral equality for everyone. This is not so far for Kant, who argued that certain inherent characteristics in the various races explain what he saw as a hierarchy of intelligence” (Wolff, 2021, 265).
I can ignore these situations in favor of his core method of applied ethics, but more modernized.
References:
Wolff, J. (2021). An Introduction To Moral Philosophy (2nd ed.). W.W. Norton & Company.