Throughout the years philosophers have asked,
what makes an action good?
Suppose you’re trying to save the world from aliens who seek to enslave humanity,
but you accidentally blow up Earth?
Most unpleasant, indeed!
Or, what if you see an infant fall into a pond? You jump in to save it
but a crocodile gets there first. Can your action still be considered morally good?
Well, It depends on whom you ask. Immanuel Kant would say that the moral worth of your
action is determined entirely by whether or not you were motivated by duty,
whereas English philosopher John Stuart Mill would say the moral worth of your action is
determined by the amount of happiness it produces, and for the greatest number of people.
Kant defines duty as “the necessity to act out of respect for the moral law.” So, if
it is your duty to attempt to save the drowning child, but you fail, your action is still
morally good. The consequences of that attempt are morally irrelevant.
Of course, it’s natural to feel happiness from doing your duty, but Kant thinks this
doesn’t matter. Because for him, morality isn’t a matter of what makes you happy, it’s
about rationality.
You see, to determine an action’s moral worth, you must look to the will of the person
who, well, willed the action! Now, the good that the good will wills is expressed by doing
our duty, which satisfies what Kant calls the Categorical Imperative.
The Categorical Imperative is a self-given law, a command that, Kant thinks, our reason
dictates to us. Consequently, when we act from duty, we are willing the right thing
out of respect for ourselves as rational, law-giving beings.
Mill, on the other hand, thinks that happiness, not rationality, is fundamental to morality.
And by happiness Mill means pleasure, and the absence of pain.
Indeed, Mill thinks that pleasure is the only
thing that’s inherently valuable. But, it should be noted, not all pleasures are equal.
Provided that an action promotes happiness, it is morally good. To the extent it does
not promote happiness, it is wrong.
But what if they’re both wrong? What if morality is a delusion, just a sophisticated
way of asserting one's preference? What if it’s all relative?