Kant s Powerful Reasoning For Moral Atrocities - 1525 Words

Isaac Albert Moral Philosophy 3/20/2016 Word Count: 1528 Kant’s powerful reasoning for moral atrocities. Kant explains his moral theory, the categorical imperative, in â€Å"Grounding for the metaphysics of Morals†. In this paper i will argue that Kantian reasoning provides the most powerful understanding of how to assess and navigate moral dilemmas concerning atrocities when compared to Utilitarianism. In order to effectively do so, i will be using a case by Bernard Williams. The case by Williams in â€Å"A critique of Utilitarianism,† is as followed. Jim is in a small South American town where he finds a band of armed men holding twenty indians hostaged. Pedro, the man in charge, explains that because of recent protest the†¦show more content†¦Furthermore, i will provide an examination of what both utilitarianism and the categorical imperative would do in this situation; beginning with utilitarianism. In â€Å"Principles of Morals and Legislation† Jeremy Bentham outlines utilitarianism. The most important feature being the principle of utility, Benth am believes that pleasure and pain governs all aspect of life, and one must do all they can to reduce their pain and maximize their pleasure ( Bentham, 7) Bentham Develops the Felicific calculator in order to quantitatively measure pain and pleasure in any given circumstance. To adhere to this calculus, one ought to consider if â€Å"the value of a pleasure or pain will be greater or less according to: Intensity, duration, certainty, nearness, fecundity, purity, and extent† (Bentham, 22). For an example, in Williams’ case one must consider the pleasure and pain involved in their ability to be certain of the outcomes of their actions. If one cannot be sure that they can trust Pedro’s promise to let the nineteen hostages go, then this should be considered in the calculations of the pleasures and pain of the consequences of their actions. Consequentialism is another key aspect to utilitarianism. An action s morality is dependent on outcomes only. One’s inte ntions does not really matter. It becomes evidently clear from running the felicific calculus, consulting the principles of utility and