Reader Submissions – The Moral Philosophers

Mill’s Utilitarianism In Practice

Overview

Utilitarian Mill defends the idea that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (186). This is a subjective rather than an objective consequentialist framework: Mill does not say what the specific objects of happiness and pleasure are, simply that increasing them both in quantity and quality is the goal of morality. Mill thinks that desiring to promote happiness and minimize pain is a sufficient motivation to take good actions, in fact this is the first principle that he thinks we have made the grave error of not previously identifying. Once we have this, all more complex moral questions should fall into place.

One complication that emerges is the distinction between motivation and intention. Mill separates these as such: motivation is the “disposition—bent of character”, and intention is what the agent “wills to do” (196). This initially seems a bit counterintuitive; if someone takes actions that have beneficial consequences for the most number of people, how can their disposition of character still be bent towards immorality? In separating these two we end up with people deserving of their moral desert who have a much smaller sphere of influence than people with a large sphere that act in bad faith because of some secret benefit to themselves.

Utilitarianism has gotten a bad reputation from some naysayers who label utilitarians as heartless, focused on improper ends, and simply asks too much from people. Mill responds to the charge of ‘coldness’ by saying that those who hold to systems of virtue ethics are equally cold to those they feel have not developed their virtue effortfully and doubles down, saying that “in the long run the best proof of a good character is good actions; and [utilitarians] resolutely refuse to consider any mental disposition as good, of which the predominant tendency is to produce bad conduct” (197).

Mill confronts the accusation that utilitarianism sets too high of a standard, his response is that “no system of ethics requires that the sole motive of all we do shall be a feeling of duty,” (195) meaning that most people will have very few occasions to make decisions that have a massive impact on the happiness of society. Mill responds to the most popular objection, which asserts that utilitarianism’s end of ‘pleasure’ is not dignified enough for humans, by introducing a separation between high and low pleasures.

Prompt 1

“My boyfriend wants to follow me and live with me after he graduates from his university, but I’m not sure if I want to be responsible for changing his career trajectory and have him move to a new town. But at the same time I still want to be with him.”

The individual who asked this question left a fair amount of details open for interpretation. They hinge their moral issue on their own potential feelings of responsibility for the situation, which adds an interesting layer to the strictly utilitarian view of the argument. In order to do a purely utilitarian analysis, we would have to know with more certainty about what the poster’s boyfriend is giving up, and heading towards. If he was giving up his dream job, for example, that could have a large effect on the happiness balance required by Mill’s theory. Even if he wants to leave, and they both want to be with each other, he would be significantly reducing his own happiness, which would have to be considered. However, if there is greater potential for long-term happiness accumulation in a different field or place, it could be an easy decision from the utilitarian perspective.

The introduction of weighing the responsibility felt by the poster seems as though it increases the complexity of weighing the decision. For Mill, though, it seems as though this would not be a significant factor. He writes that the greatest happiness principle is designed to produce

existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison. (Mill section 10)

Importantly, here, he points out that those who are ‘best furnished with the means of comparison,’ and are therefore able to make the most educated decision, should be the ones giving the most input when making decisions. Additionally, he emphasizes the importance of considering both quality and quantity of happiness. In this case, the poster’s boyfriend is considering reducing his quantity of happiness (temporarily, at least, if he has to find a new job or career) in exchange for an increase in the quality by getting to continue his relationship. Ultimately, if the poster is planning to move away regardless of his decision, the boyfriend is going to lose either his career or his girlfriend, so it seems as though it is up to him to weigh those out and decide which would reduce his happiness the least from the utilitarian perspective. However, the poster has an equal right to do that equation for herself – if she would be materially less happy if her boyfriend moved with her, she should express that.

Applying Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle here does not produce a completely satisfying answer, because it ultimately dictates that the only people who can really judge the situation are those whose happiness is most directly affected by it. However, applying the utilitarian logic of maximizing happiness more generally does show that there will be potential decreases in happiness regardless of what happens, which should reduce the responsibility that the poster feels towards her boyfriend making the choice to come with her.

Prompt 2

Should I build a fence and refrain the neighbors from using the pool?

TLDR: The narrator had just moved into a pool and has a pool in their backyard. The neighbors had told the narrator that sometimes the old owner would let them use the pool, however the narrator said that she was uncomfortable with that and that they can use it occasionally. However, the neighbors’ kids abused the privilege all summer and she is now planning to put up a fence. The fence is within regulation and on the property line, however the neighbor suggested that she was depriving them of the pool and that she should put a gate between the yards, so it would be easier for the kids to come to her house.

In Mill’s perspective, he would be in favor of not putting up the fence. The owner at hand would be considered the agent. Mill says that “the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent’s own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator” (Mill 194). In other words, the agent’s happiness should not be prioritized, but instead their happiness should be alongside the happiness of the neighbors. It should be equal. When analyzing this prompt, we can go about it in two ways depending on whose happiness outweighs the other. In my opinion, Mill would say that the happiness of the kids and the neighbors is the maximization of happiness and therefore that outweighs the happiness of the owner.

Additionally, Mill argues for a distribution of wealth to those who are more disadvantaged than you are. For example, say you had $17 in your wallet. Mill believes that you are much richer than most people and therefore must give up those $17. For this specific prompt, Mill would see the pool in the same way as the money. This would mean that the owner would have to share the pool with the less fortunate (the neighbors). All things considered, Mill would be against the owner’s plan of refraining the neighbors from using the pool. However, the neighbors did point out the idea of putting a gate in the fence so that the kids can come though it to use the pool. I believe that this would be the best idea and Mill would agree as this gives the agent some happiness while also sharing her wealth and giving happiness to the neighbors.

Synthesis

Overall, Mill has a utilitarianism view of the world. Utilitarianism’s primary focus is structured for the greater good for the most people. Within Mill’s view it is not the greater good but the amount of happiness for the most people that constitutes a morally significant action. Mill specifically believes that the relevant measure rather than greater good is the amount of happiness. Mill subsequently believes and judges one’s moral significance through the total amount of happiness achieved through an action. Concerning the first prompt, Mill would believe the boyfriend should stay in the relationships as it would keep the happiness level the same and any other change would decrease it. Concerning the second prompt and whether the neighbors should use the pool Mill would believe it would be morally right for the owner to allow the neighbors to use their pool as it leads to a majority of the people being happy. Overall, Mill judges one’s actions on their affective happiness, so Mill would say for the boyfriend to stay in his relationship on the first prompt and in favor for the neighbors to use the pool in the second.

Milling For Happiness in 2020

With 2020 now nearly complete, our hopes of the COVID-19 pandemic coming to an end by 2021 have been dashed. When faced with the prospect of operating for the 2020-21 school year almost all colleges and universities decided to switch to a virtual learning environment. In itself, this decision made sense; yet, when combined with their decisions to retain their high tuition fees, many students and their guardians started to raise complaints. After all, why should they continue to pay large sums of money for an educational experience that is not what they had signed up for? As a result, the following question is one that now plagues colleges and universities across the world: is it morally justified to keep the tuition fee the same despite college moving to the virtual platform and remote from campus?

As stated above, most would argue that the virtual format is not as conducive to learning as if it were in-person. Moreover, some of us live in homes that are distracting and diminish our learning experience, especially given we no longer have access to a quiet, study space like the library. Therefore, to keep tuition costs the same is contradictory to the product. I believe Mill’s recommendation to this dilemma would be relatively straightforward. How does the school operate in a way in which it recognizes its students and vouches for their progression?

As of right now, students are upset because they feel as though the school is acting as a private entity instead of a collegiate institution governing by and for its students. Moreover, there is a reserve pool of money each school has that they can tap into for emergencies, and if Covid isn’t considered one, then I do not know what is. With that being said, Mill would argue that the school needs to give back to the student by reducing the tuition costs. Obviously, the school should ensure that it does not reduce the costs so much it finds itself in bankruptcy, but a calculated amount that shows appreciation for the students. In turn, the students will be happy, not only because the cost of tuition has decreased, but also because they feel fortunate and proud to be represented by an institution that sincerely cares about and listens to its students. And the school, in response to this good deed, may receive heartwarming feedback from the community thanking them for this decision, which may motivate the school to continue acting accordingly in the future.

Our world is ever-changing as just as we know that the sun will rise in the morning, we know that it takes time for the global pandemic to decline. Colleges should reduce tuition in a grand way. Thus we, the students, haven’t been cheated out of our money and we can still get the quality education that we all want. Education must prevail and no worldwide pandemic can change or hinder how education can and should be taught. Mill would agree with us as in utilitarianism the many outweigh the few because there are far more students than professors or administrators. Mill would agree that a reduced tuition would “make up” for a semester over the internet.

There are many people who hate Donald Trump. After all, were it not for him and his ever-changing administration, a significant portion of the population in the United States believes that many horrors could have been avoided. For instance, the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Or the promotion of racism and white nationalism. And here’s the kicker: the objective perspective would likely prove this claim to be true. After all, nations outside of the United States constantly look upon Trump and his administration with horror. As reality stands, Trump and his administration have influenced the death of hundreds of thousands (and that’s just COVID-19). As such, it comes as no surprise that there are people who would (and do) wish death upon Donald Trump. Only one question remains in their way: is this wishful thinking ethical?

This situation potentially seems complex and nuanced, but is relatively simple, especially from Mill’s standpoint of subjective consequentialism. Regardless of how one truly feels about Donald Trump (whether or not one thinks that he deserves to have death wished upon him), I think that it is very hard to argue that wishing death upon him is truly unethical. This is because, according to subjective consequentialism, the act of wishing death upon a president does not impede anyone else’s happiness; in fact, it may even make a lot of people happy (as in, it might make the person doing the wishing happy). Also, just wishing death upon another person, especially if that wish is kept to oneself, does not harm anyone, even the target of the wish. And if this is, in fact, the case, that wishing death upon Donald Trump makes the wisher happy and also does not make anyone else unhappy at all, then this act is definitely ethical according to Mill’s theory and model of subjective consequentialism.

Ultimately history will continue and all beings on this planet will eventually be consumed by the sun as we slowly die and all we know is lost. Covid 19 is yet another road bump in the journey that we are taking to that moment in time. Mill would say, because utilitarianism accounts for the majority of people, that because one person would die it doesn’t matter, this instead of wishing death upon him allows him to live in banishment. However because he is responsible for allowing over 250,000 Americans to die because of the pandemic he should be held responsible for all the deaths. History will frown upon Donald Trump, but utilitarianism and Mill’s ideals will live on forever because democracy’s main purpose is to adhere to the will of the majority of people, not the rich with wealth and power.

When saving your roommate’s life is FINALLY the “right” decision.

Should I give my dying grandpa pain medicine even though he said he didn’t want it?

TL;DR: A grandfather had stated to his family members previously in his life that he does not want any pain medication if he happens to need it when he is old. As of now, the grandfather is an old man who is suffering from memory loss and tons of pain due to an illness. Although the grandfather had told his family members not to give him pain medication, the time has come as to whether or not he is going to receive some. The family members are worrying about whether or not to give the grandfather the pain medication.

Mill’s answer would be clear in this situation: the family should give the grandpa the pain medication. Being a subjective consequentialist, Mill asserts that a good action is one that brings “the greatest amount of happiness altogether” (189). In this situation, we can assess the happiness in each scenario–if the family gives the grandpa the pain killers, and if they choose not to. If the family did not give the grandpa medicine, the grandpa would still be in pain and this would have repercussive effects on the family and their happiness. The grandpa being in more pain would only increase the stress and discontentment of the family, as well as the doctors who help the grandpa. The grandpa complaining less and being more calm would benefit everyone. The painkillers would increase the grandpa’s current happiness, increase the happiness of the family, and increase the happiness of any doctors helping the grandpa. Some would argue that the grandpa’s happiness would be less because he specifically mentioned not wanting pain killers in the past. But, the grandpa is already losing his memory and currently would be happier if the medication was administered. If the family is still hesitant about the grandpa’s wishes, they could ask him in the state that he is right now about painkillers. Even if the grandpa replies that he does not want medication, the family should still consent to him having it because it would increase their happiness and the happiness of the doctors. Additionally, because Mill defines happiness as “intended pleasure, and the absence of pain”, technically the grandpa’s happiness would be greater, though he does not want the medication (186). Medication would remove pain and increase pleasure in the case of the grandpa, so his opinion on the matter would not be important according to Mill. Overall, Mill would say that the family should give the grandpa pain medication, even if he does not want it.

Should I lie to a murderer at my door to save my roommate’s life?

TL;DR: Two roommates live in a house. Roommate one is in their room and relaxing. Roommate two is in the TV room by the front door. Roommate two hears a knock on the door and to his surprise it is a murderer asking whether or not roommate one is at the house. Roommate two has an opportunity to lie as to the whereabouts of where roommate one is, or he can tell the truth and ultimately end up allowing the murderer to kill roommate one and probably himself (Because no witnesses). Should roommate two lie to save his roommate’s life?

As Mill represents the subjective consequentialist, concerned with outcomes, and unlike Kant who focuses on the lie, Mill would remain much more focused on the murder about to take place. Essentially, for Mill this becomes a question of saving the most amount of lives because this is connected to happiness; if I lie to the murderer, he/she might kill me as well as my roommate while if I lie, saying my roommates not home, the murderer may leave and we both survive. In this case, Mill would clearly side with lying to immediately protect these individuals’ happiness. As he represents the subjective consequentialist, it’s important to consider the murderers perspective. While the context and motivation for the murder may vary, for this murderer, killing the roommate is bringing them a sort of happiness at the expense of another’s life. While Mozi, the objective consequentialist, maintains ethical standards of contributing to the population or poor, Mill believes the morally right choice is that that produces the overall happiest result to benefit the maximum number of people. Murdering even one person is not producing the happiest outcome for the most number of people. For the above scenario because Mill is the subjective consequentialist and is therefore concerned with the outcomes of the action, Mill would advise the action that brings the greatest subjective happiness to the greatest number of people. Mill represents utilitarianism:

“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure”
Mill 186

Given this quote, it is apparent that Mill would advise the action that promotes happiness and absence of pain. Therefore if roommate #2 lies and says that roommate #1 is not home and this causes the murderer to leave, then both roommates are happy but the murderer is not. If roommate #2 tells the truth and the murderer then comes inside and kills roommate #1 (and possibly #2 as well for being a witness) then both roommates are dead and this is not beneficial to them and only the murderer is happy because this action was only beneficial for the murderer. Therefore, Mill would advise roommate #1 to lie in order to maximize the overall happiness of everyone involved.

Safe Protests and Sociopaths: Mozi’s Guidance

Overview of Mozi’s views:

Mozi is an objective consequentialist which means in order to conclude if one’s action is moral or not, the results of the action must be looked at. The central theory of his moral philosophy is inclusive care, also known as impartial care. Mozi states that “the business of a benevolent person is to promote what is beneficial to the world and eliminate what is harmful” (Mozi 68). This quote summarizes the whole idea behind inclusive care. To put this quote in other words, it means that an action is moral if the effect it has on the world is beneficial and if it reduces harms. In addition to this theory, Mohists examines actions based on three objective goods: enrichment of the poor, increase of population, the making of a well-ordered world (Mozi 80). If the action results in one of these goods, then it is a good and moral action.

He is not a subjective consequentialist and therefore does not look at subjective states such as happiness or sadness to determine if something is morally right. Within his argument, Mozi clears up questions that may come up, such as how does inclusive care work with filial piety, the virtue of respecting elders in your family. He states that his theory does not contradict filial piety, in fact it promotes it. To better understand this claim, he brings up a scenario in which asks the question of whether or not a filial son would want someone to steal from his parents or have them show his parents the same love and respect he does. Mozi responds by saying, “according to the very meaning of filial piety, he must want other people to care for and benefit his parents” (Mozi 74). With this said, Mozi argues that his theory of inclusive care guarantees that elders are treated the same by everyone by benefiting other people first which will in turn benefit his parents. He also goes on to say that those who are not filial impose a great harm on the world (Mozi 68).

Prompt 1:

The first prompt we are discussing concerns a politically active member of society who wishes to be a part of the BLM protests however they are living with an immuno-compromised grandparent and juggles the morality of their responsibility for both the movement and their families health. Within Mozi’s view of this moral dilemma he would say that said person should do both. However, he would form caveats around how the person would lend themselves to the BLM movement to keep their family safe.

Mozi is fundamentally an objective consequentialist which means he doesn’t care of others’ subjective wants but rather how the consequences are evaluated through the objective goods. The three objective goods include: enrichment of the poor, increase of population, and making of a well-ordered world. As well, Mozi identifies two classes of harms which are power relations and someone lacking in virtues. Ultimately, Mozi’s fundamental belief is impartiality as he said “If people regarded other people’s states in the same way that they regard their own, who would then incite their own state to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself (68)”.

Concerning the prompt and following along the lines of the objective goods, the great harms, and the significance of impartiality Mozi would believe that the person should lend themselves to the BLM movement however not through the protest because the person would be committing the two great harms. Thinking within the lense of impartiality if said person posing the question is “regard[ing] other people’s states in the same way they regard their own” then this person would lend themselves to the BLM movement but not through protest to keep their family’s health safe. Mozi believes that going to the protest and risking the health of the grandparents would be wrong because it would violate both of the great harms. Mozi said that the great harms included; “the noble acting arrogantly toward the humble […], and children who are not filial (68)”. If this person were to go to the protest, though their wants of lending themselves to the movement is “noble”, they would be “acting ignorant” towards their immuno-compromised grandparents. Furthermore, this person would be doing the opposite of being “filial” by not lending their respect to their elders.

However, Mozi would believe that the person should lend themselves to the movement due to the three objective goods. Mozi says that one of “the ways that benevolent people plan on behalf of the world (80)” is to “do what they can to make it well ordered (80)”. If the person where to lend themselves to the BLM movement through circulating resources, donating, education, and discussions with others then they would not only be doing “what they can to make [the world] well ordered” but are also following the virtues of filial piety and the objective goods by keeping their grandparent safe. Mozi would say to this person to not go to the protest to keep their grandparents safe but to still do what they can through benevolence towards the BLM movement.

Prompt 2:

AITA for wanting my daughter’s boyfriend/soon-to-be fiance to know her dark secret before marriage?
byu/Pause96 inAmItheAsshole

TLDR: Should the father of a 25yr old woman with diagnosed antisocial personality disorder tell her future fiance about the diagnoses?

For this moral quandary we are concerned with whether someone’s father should reveal her diagnosed sociopathy to her future fiance. The sociopath daughter has decided not to tell the man who is expecting to marry her. The daughter is self aware, in therapy, and is successful, but has little deep emotional connection to the people. She masks her true lack of emotional connection by performing emotions at funerals or other important moments. The father does not believe that she loves her future fiancé in the way people normally love one another.

There are several components to this, first it is important to examine the basic character of the daughter as of now. It is not the case that Mozi is overly concerned with the emotions we have towards others rather than the actions we take that impact them and society as a whole. In this text post, the father details how the daughter was violent to her sister when she was much younger. Mozi might say that this goes against one of the three objective goods, namely the “well-ordered world” (Mozi 80). You should not act violently towards your family 1) because it violates filialpiety and 2) because this action does not show inclusive care (Mozi 80). However based on the meaning of filial piety, individuals should want other people to “care for” the people they love in the same way as that they do (Mozi 74). If this care was about ‘love’ then it would be debatable whether the daughter could truly offer the fiance care, but care seems to be more of a mark of deference rather than a mark of love, so a sociopath isn’t blocked from doing it, there might just be more hurdles to get over in order to motivate them. So, the daughter is capable of caring for her future fiance but it doesn’t appear that this unfolds naturally from her character.

At the same time, Mozi would probably be less concerned with the way she feels about her partner than he is about how she treats him. One issue that could emerge here is the issue of partiality, sociopaths are not an entirely uniform category but some tend to do what benefits them most, with little consideration for promises, agreements, or social connections. The daughter might tend towards partiality towards herself in almost all cases. Mozi condemns partiality, and father would certainly be acting impartially in this case if he went to the future fiance with this information as he would likely want to be personally aware of this fact. On the other side, it might be that he is doing harm to the daughter by disclosing this information because there is a chance that her partner will leave her, but that would only matter to Mozi because the potential for population increase would be slightly reduced. Mozi’s other two objective goods include “enriching the poor [and] increasing the population” (Mozi 80). If the father blocks the engagement and wedding, and possibility for children, then he will have worked against one of Mozi’s actions.

If the daughter is committed to being a healthy law abiding citizen to the best of her ability, why does she need to disclose that she is diagnosed with a mental illness? Some of the strongest arguments came from people who talked about how she could be dangerous in the future if things don’t go well or how the but plenty of people marry people who turn out to be addicts or cheaters, who simply ruin their marriage in other ways. These problems are not always so hard to see coming, especially if couples are putting the work in regular therapy appointments before huge problems arise rather than after the damage is done. The association between criminality and personality disorders is common, and misleading. The example of her harming her sister when she was young is disturbing, but probably not all that common and also not exclusive to sociopathic children.

Overall, Mozi would support the father telling the fiance about the daughter’s mental illness. The fiance does deserve to know, not because of future hypothetical children or because of the daughters complex past, but because it’s part of her as a person and keeping it from him prevents him from knowing her as fully as he should. A consequence of keeping it a secret might be that he could only love her partially, denying the daughter the experience of being loved by someone who is not outside her family and preventing him from being fully in contact with reality.

Conclusion of Mozi’s views:

Mozi is interested in increasing the population, bettering the lives of the poor, and contributing to a well-balanced society through action, these are the concrete objective goods. Mozi values filial piety, but not only in the traditional sense where individuals must show deference to their family but also such that care is inclusive of other people’s family members and we treat them as we treat our own. This is a consequence of Mozi’s value of impartiality, in which Mohists should not show special consideration for their own desires over others.

One objection to this view is external consequences are not sufficient to building a good morality. Moral motivation might be a challenge here, if people do not believe that the poor deserve aid, etc. Moral desert seems to be pretty compelling though, we would be very motivated to be impartial if we believed that this impartiality would help us in the future as well. What is right and good depends on the consequence of the action, not exclusively what kind of action it is, so there is a lot of space for people of all walks of life and levels of education to participate in this moral system without having to ponder maxims or universality, which can be pretty extensive and critical.

Religion and Morality

Mozi identifies two classes of harms: power relations, and lacking of virtues. The unifying source of these harms is partiality, so the solution is impartiality:

“For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.”
(Mozi 16; p. 68)

Thus, Mozi is an objective consequentialist. In order to explain objective consequentialism, we should first define and explain some terms. Consequentialists try to care about everyone equally, while egoists prioritize their own wellbeing. Consequentialists care about the result of their action, or, what happens due to the action they take. These philosophers ask, does the action I am taking promote what’s beneficial, or eliminate what’s harmful? These are typically the guidelines they use to frame “goodness” through. An objective consequentialist believes that actions shouldn’t be viewed with the goal of making people “happy” per se, but rather if said actions contribute to the objective goods. “…one must regard the well-being of one’s friends as one regards one’s own well-being; one must regard the parents of one’s friends as one regards one’s own parents.” (p. 70)

Mozi provides the following framing for how to assess moral goodness. Three objective goods: (Mozi 25, 32):

The enrichment of the poor
The increase of population
The making of a well ordered world

Mozi believes that humans are inherently good. This differs from Xunzi’s branch of objective consequentialism, that states that humans need rituals to act good.

A Response to Homophobia

Read the original post here. The situation is that a person commented on the OP’s same-sex relationship saying “hate the sin, not the sinner” and this person has regularly implied their belief that same-sex relationships are immoral. The OP responded “yeah, well, hate the belief, not the believer” in order to communicate that they disagreed with the religion that tells them that their relationship is inherently immoral. But the religious person then got incredibly upset and many are telling the OP that what they said was much worse than what the person had said.

Since Mozi believes that “the business of a benevolent person is to promote what is beneficial to the world and eliminate what is harmful” (Mozi 16; 68) then any actions that promote what is beneficial to the world would be viewed by Mozi as moral and praiseworthy. Therefore, the question is whether or not this person speaking out against a person who was disparaging their relationship was beneficial to the world. I would argue that this person speaking out was beneficial to the world due to the fact that homophobia and prejudice as a whole does a great deal of harm in this world. Moreover, this person went out of their way to comment on the poster’s relationship without being asked and had previously implied “the need of spiritual help with [the poster’s] condition.” This person is clearly not only prejudiced against same-sex relationships but goes out of their way to express this prejudice to people.

The OP speaking against this behavior is beneficial as hopefully it promotes the fact that bias is unacceptable and harmful and this person’s comments are offensive and need to stop. The poster even mentioned “hope that my words would put what she’s being doing to me into perspective for her.” Even though what was said did upset this person, since this action was done out of hope of making her see the error in her ways and eliminate bias in this world that is harmful then overall Mozi would likely state this action is beneficial to the world and therefore moral.

Health vs. Religious Views

“Meet Amy. Amy is a 22-year-old who has a degenerative brain condition. Left untreated, this brain condition has symptoms similar to Alzheimer’s, beginning with the gradual loss of memory and advancing to loss of more basic functioning, and ultimately death. In the later stages of this disease, Amy will have no memories of who she is. Unlike Alzheimer’s, however, this disease is treatable, and ultimately reversible. If the condition is reversed, the patient will regain memories prior to the onset of the disease, but not any memories from the later stages of the disease.

Treatment is covered by insurance and has relatively minimal side effects. However, Amy is a member of a religious sect with strong views on modern medicine. Members of this sect are prohibited from any medical treatment beyond the most basic (think first aid, aspirin, etc). Although the sect’s guiding text does not specifically mention this disease, it can be clearly inferred from what the text does say, as well as the practices of the sect, that treatment of the condition would violate Amy’s religious beliefs. Amy is not interested in treatment for this reason, and refuses to consider it. Amy’s parents want her to be treated, but know that Amy’s religious convictions mean that this would be impossible. However, they believe that it would be acceptable to compel her to be treated once she has forgotten these religious beliefs as a consequence of her disease.

Disregarding any legal factors, would it be morally acceptable for Amy’s parents to convince her to seek treatment in her memory-less state? Why or why not? Is no-memory Amy the same person as memory-Amy?”

This would not be a morally acceptable action for Amy’s parents to take. Mozi, a classical Chinese philosopher, stated “that If people regarded other people’s states in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own state to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself” (68). Mozi is saying that the way to act morally is for you to hold another person in equal regard when compared to yourself, if you consider everyone the same way you consider yourself you would never cause any type of ill will to them. This is because no person would intentionally cause themselves harm or go against their own beliefs. This is applicable to Amy’s situation because her parents need to put themselves into her shoes, by doing so they will be sympathetic to her beliefs and would most likely not follow through with this decision. Based on Mozi’s philosophy this is the case due to the fact one should always do unto others as they would do unto themselves, and it is safe to say they would not want their wishes to be disrespected.

To strengthen this point of view Mozi gives a short anecdote about a man who takes control of a city. After this Mozi examines his motivation for doing so and the conclusion reached was he did it “not because he wanted to increase his wealth and honor, earn for himself additional favors and blessings, or because it pleased his eyes and ears, but rather because he wanted to contribute to the benefit of the world and eliminate what is harmful to it” (73). Based on this Mozi would tell Amy’s parents that even though they are able to get their daughter back the choices they make should not be for their benefit, the same way the man from the story could have received rewards of all types his actions were not seeking them. Her parents need to consider what is harmful to their daughter, if they choose to coerce her then they would be causing her harm as they would be disrespecting her wishes. So it becomes clear that Amy’s parents need to act in a way that is beneficial for her and not for them, this might mean sacrificing their daughter, but in doing so they are combating the greatest evils in the world.

The Biting Dilemma of Consequences

Losing a family pet can be a difficult thing to do, especially when using the philosophy in question to make a moral decision. In this moral problem we see a family member who sees that the dog of another family member is not doing well physically, as it has been deteriorating more and more every time the person visits. Is it moral to tell the family members about the worry for the dog? And if not how much should the dog be able to die before the family takes action? In order to be moral you must tell the owners of the dog as it is immoral to keep an animal in pain, it is also immoral to take the dog to the vet and spend money on it as that money could go to making other dogs live a longer and healthier life. There is no easy decision here but in order to be moral feelings must be put aside to make sure an innocent animal no longer suffers.

This is certainly a difficult situation to be in; however, the reality of the situation is that we must think in terms of consequences. According to the philosopher, Mozi, “The business of a benevolent person is to promote what is beneficial to the world and eliminate what is harmful.” (Mozi, 16; 68) In other words, we must focus not on what makes us happy or unhappy and instead act in ways that create positive objective change either which, in this case, would be the making of a well-ordered world. As such, although the decision will be emotionally difficult, we advise that you let your family dog go. In his critique of Mozi, the philosopher Xunzi has stated that if humans act upon their desires (rather than objective goals) then the world will lead to chaos. Acting to prolong your dog’s life is to act on your desires and, while it might bring your family temporary happiness (at a financial cost), you will still eventually have to let your dog cross the rainbow bridge. This time, however, the dog might experience exacerbated pain during their extended lifespan; this is some of the chaos that Xunzi alludes to – that and the fact that keeping your dying pet alive ultimately prevents another animal that is just as worthy of a loving home of having a safe and fulfilling life. This, of course, isn’t to say that your family dog is replaceable; rather, it is to say that actions to keep it alive stem from a selfish human desire which, according to Mozi, is not the moral thing to do.

The United States is currently in a time of protest and change, all in the midst of a global pandemic that has killed far too many people. In this moral problem we see someone who really wants to participate in the protests for BLM as they are politically active, but sadly they live with their grandparents who are at risk to contract Covid-19. Is it moral to go and possibly infect your grandparents to protest the horrible things happening in the US right now? It is important to remember that Mozi wants pure impartiality and to follow the inclusive care framework, meaning that we recommend that they person does not go and participate in the in person protests to remove harmful action to their loved ones.

In this scenario, the individual who wishes to go to the protest must keep in mind ways to remain impartial when making this decision. A thought experiment that may help them with this decision is how they would advise a stranger facing the same dilemma. Under Mozi’s inclusive care framework, all individuals possess the same value. Therefore, instead of seeing the grandparents as people that are related to the individual, see them as strangers that are fearful of the virus. This may help given that it is easier to take advantage of individuals one feels more comfortable with. By detaching oneself from familial bonds, the individual can begin to recognize the merit of their action. From an outside perspective, this scenario paints an important hierarchy of pleasure. By going to the protest and defying your grandparents frail state, the result of the action is pleasure solely for the self. Moreover, I would argue that the pleasure the individual may experience from the protest is short-lived. As soon as they return home, they are reminded of the danger they have put their grandparents in. On the other hand, staying home is not only generating pleasure by potentially keeping the grandparents alive, but also from their gratitude that they will express toward the individual. I believe Mozi would argue for staying home because the individual would be acting partially as well as removing the threat of harmful action.

We arrived at this moral advice primarily through the lens of Mozi’s moral philosophy; that is, via the lens of objective consequentialism. The primary principles that we applied to the above situations were – to promote what is good in the world and eliminate what is harmful (Mozi 16; 68), and Mozi’s idea of inclusive care which means to essentially treat every human being equally, no matter what your relationship is to them (family member, stranger, or friend, etc.). By practically applying these ideas and principles to the moral quandaries above, we came to our conclusions.

For the situation involving the family dog, it is our belief that the right and just thing to do here would be to let it go. This is because allowing the dog to remain in a prolonged state of suffering not only hurts the dog, but it also harms the owners of the dog (financially and emotionally). Because they have the direct power to stop this bad situation, they should, according to objective consequentialism.

For the dilemma involving going to the protests or staying home to protect one’s family members, we decided that the just thing to do would be to stay home. This is not only to practically maintain the safety of everyone involved (which should be a duty of everyone), it also spares oneself and one’s family members from (emotional) suffering. Something else to note here is that even though the person in question would not be attending an in-person protest, there are many other ways to get involved in social movements such as donations and online advocacy. To stay home and protect one’s family is not to completely forego political activism.

To reiterate, according to Mozi’s moral theory, one has the duty to promote what is right in the world and eliminate what is harmful, and to treat everyone as equals. It is these principles primarily that we drew upon to discern our moral advice for the two specific dilemmas above.

Death Upon Trump and Mr. Bič

Buss argues that manners are vital to Kantian ethics as appearing respectful is to treat someone in a way that acknowledges their intrinsic value. But Buss also acknowledges that there are some key differences between manners and morals for instance manners encourage us to be agreeable, manners are about appearances, and manners are culturally relative. These differences are notable, but do not undermine manners’ moral significance.

While manners might not be synonymous with morals, the two ideals are closely connected as “making oneself agreeable to others is not only an end in itself; it is also, and more importantly, a means to treating them with respect” (798). In other words, Kant states that to act morally, all people must be viewed as an end in and of themselves not merely as a means to an end. Manners help promote this view through the fact that “good manners, then, not only inspire good morals. They do so by constructing a conception of human beings as objects of moral concern” (800).

Moreover, Buss also mentions that “social disharmony could not fail to adversely affect people’s willingness to regulate their behavior according to certain principles of justice” (799) for three reasons. First, people who are angry and resentful are less likely to help others. Second, people who are disagreeable alienate themselves from others and don’t care about their wellbeing. Finally, people who aren’t in the habit of treating others with respect are not conditioned to seeing people’s inherent worth. Therefore, Buss states that morals are significant for Kantian ethics as they are necessary to promote and cultivate the respectful treatment of all humans.

Wishing Death Upon Trump

Are individuals justified in wishing death upon trump?

Trump does / did lots of bad, morally wrong shit. Lots of people think the world would be better off without him in it, and some even wish for his death. Is this morally wrong through Buss’ framing?

Our group thinks that there is an important distinction between wishing something would happen and verbalizing that wish. One is a thought while the other is an action that has an effect on others. We’re going to focus on the implications of verbalizing these wishes, because that’s what we’ve deemed most applicable to Buss’s theory. Manners are acting in a way that may not necessarily be in line with your thoughts due to social norms and protocols. Manners are a method of appearing respectful to others. We do this to exhibit that we view other people as ends, rather than just a means to an end.

It is impolite to verbalize a death wish for anyone because it disregards that people are ends in themselves. Buss believes that regardless of what a person has done, it is still impolite to be rude to them, because it is displaying that you don’t care about their life or acknowledge their intrinsic value as a person. Even though Trump has shown a complete disregard for the humanity of others, Buss still claims that we should extend that nicety/formality to him.

Just because it is impolite, does this mean that it is also immoral? Buss would say yes, it is immoral, because treating people as a means to an end is not acknowledging their special dignity. Every person has inherent value, and we act politely because we directly acknowledge that they are worthy of respect (802). According to both her and Kant, all people deserve to be treated with respect, regardless of whatever unjust or immoral actions they may have taken themselves. To treat another person any other way is thus immoral.

Mr. Bič

In this problem, we are introduced to a man who works at an international company. At this company it is customary to refer to people via their last name. This man, who’s last name is Bič, is from Czech Republic and most of the people he works with are from the United States. When his American coworkers say his name it sounds a lot like Mr. “Bitch”. Many of the people who work with them do not wish to use this to refer to him as they work from home and are around their families for most of the work day. At first his coworkers called him Mr. Birch but he felt slightly offended and corrected them which led them to request a new representative from the company. Due to the drastic difference in time zones he is the only one capable of working with them. This management has pressured him to accept being called Mr. Birch but he believes that this is unjust and he might even have grounds to file a discrimination complaint.

By not referring to Mr. Bič by his proper name, the Americans are not only disrespecting him but also the company custom of calling people by their last name. Buss states that “good manners, then, not only inspire good morals. They do so by constructing a conception of human beings as objects of moral concern” (800). This shows, for both Buss and Kant, that when his coworkers choose to not use his proper name they are not treating him as an object of moral concern which means they are treating him as a pure means. Buss shares their belief that “social disharmony could not fail to adversely affect people’s willingness to regulate their behavior according to certain principles of justice” (799). This statement tells us that by not using Mr. Bič’s proper name they are pushing him towards being resentful by not treating him as though he has inherent value by refusing to call him by his name.

In Buss’s article, she makes the argument that manners are very important especially within Kantian ethics, this situation Mr. Bič has found himself in shows the clashing of two different cultures. In his culture, Mr. Bič means “the whip”. Even though the American staff feels as if they are breaking their own moral code by using a perceived curse word in front of their families they are actually disrespecting Mr. Bič and the company custom of using a person’s last name. Discussing this particular situation with their families could easily solve any moral code they think they are breaking by using his real name while also granting him and the company custom the amount of moral concern they are entitled to.

Synthesis

Both of these problems have to do with disrespecting a person by not acknowledging their intrinsic value. Though one is on a greater scale of wishing death upon someone, and one is on a smaller scale of mispronouncing someone’s name, both are immoral because ultimately, treating someone disrespectfully means viewing them as a means rather than an end. Even in a case like the first one, where the person in question has committed immoral acts themself, it is not up to us to judge how that person should be treated. At the end of the day, we are all human beings and all human beings have an inherent value, thus making them worthy of respect.

Kantian Ethicists Subscription to the Golden Rule: A Quick and Simple Guide to the Collective Deontology

**Golden Rule:**
**Treat others the way you want to be treated.**

Prompt 1: My boyfriend wants to follow me and live with me after he graduates from his university, but I’m not sure if I want to be responsible for changing his career trajectory and have him move to a new town. But at the same time I still want to be with him.

In this scenario, we have a girlfriend and boyfriend who are very close, as they should be in a relationship. The boyfriend wants to stay with the girlfriend after he finishes college. The girlfriend however does not feel comfortable changing her boyfriend’s life and career to stay in the relationship. However she still likes being with him and wants to stay in the relationship. Relationships are a huge factor in our life, and we believe that in order to gain a full philosophical role that adheres to manners, we believe that she should stay with her boyfriend.

Although Buss and Olberding differ for their reasons behind manners’ role within a given moral framework, they can both agree that an important component of etiquette is establishing and maintaining the appearance. For Buss, the appearance is meant to serve as a selfless act for which true acknowledgement of the other takes place. Specifically, acknowledging the other’s intrinsic value, or dignity (Buss 796). Regardless of how an individual feels about another, they are rational beings and thus deserving of respect. And by appearing respectful in behaving with manners, we thereby directly express the respect we have for others.

With that in mind, the partner of the boyfriend has a relatively straightforward approach to their dilemma. In order to show the boyfriend respect, Buss argues that the partner needs to be agreeable. In this scenario, that would endorse a more passive and accepting approach from the partner. The fact that the partner wants to stay with the boyfriend makes the decision quite simple. The partner should listen and ultimately agree with the boyfriend’s plea to stay together because his value would be acknowledged as a result. Moreover, the relationship may also strengthen because the boyfriend would feel recognized and more importantly, entrusted. Therefore, I would recommend the partner prioritizes the relationship and stays with the boyfriend.

Prompt 2: I have a friend who is part of the LDS church and does not believe in gay marriage (I definitely do). We have been friends since we were in kindergarten, and of course at that time we didn’t think about these differences. Should I not be friends with him since he doesn’t value LGBTQ+ rights?

Our society is one of manners and courtesy. This means that in essence, we have a code of rules that we have set in society. On this prompt, we see two friends with differing views on gay marriage and LGBTQ+ rights. One of the friends is a member of the LDS church, an organization known for their lack of respect for the LGBTQ+ community. Should they continue to be friends even though they can’t agree on this political issue? We believe that in this situation, respect is paramount. Thus, the individual belonging to the LDS church should have a conversation with their friend about the issue. Regardless of whether they decide to end the relationship, we believe both individuals should be treated with respect in the process.

One of the most critical components of manners – otherwise known as etiquette or courtesy – is how an individual presents themselves. A follower of Kantian moral philosophy, Buss believes that every rational being, humans included, are worthy of respect and should be treated as such through the act of manners. Manners, Buss believes, are a matter of good morals; to interact with another individual without proper manners is to act immorally. As a result, our response to the matter of friendship with a member of the LDS church is fairly straightforward. If you would like to act with good manners, the suggested course of action is to remain friends with this individual for ending the friendship abruptly would be considered rude, especially if the individual asking this question has never conversed with their friend about the topic of valuing LGBTQ+ rights.

This being said, we make this suggestion only on the assumption that the individual asking this question would not be directly harmed by continuing this friendship. This is to say, if the individual is a member of the LGBTQ+ community, of which this possible friend does not value, then our advice would then be for the individual to end the friendship but to explain to their former friend why the friendship is ending. The reality is that respect and manners are a two-way street; you can treat someone with good manners all you want but if the other individual is not doing the same for you (not treating you with respect as a member of the LGBTQ+ community), then you are bringing harm unto yourself by letting yourself be treated with less respect than you deserve. You owe it to yourself to ask to be treated with respect, even if that means ending the friendship; we only ask that you still treat your former friend with respect by letting them know why you’re choosing to let go of what was once a good relationship.

We based our moral advice here on one primary notion: that each and every human being has inherent value because they are human. Thus, everyone deserves and should be treated with respect. Even in scenarios where one may need to be blunt or even confrontational with a friend or colleague, one must always keep respect in mind; it should be at the forefront of every interaction, no matter the circumstances. This is not to say, however, that one should just be a pushover – one should also expect to be respected by others. It is moral to treat others with respect, but it is not immoral to expect that same respect back. It is also worth noting that respect, manners, and etiquette can still be maintained during arguments, debates, and confrontations. This principle is how we decided upon what moral advice to give to the people in the two situations above – as long as you are making decisions with the humanity and value of other people in mind (as well as showing this through your actions) you will almost certainly be behaving in a way that is moral.

Means to an End

Kant on capitalism and moral obligations to others.

In terms of the ethical standard problem, Kant states that “the categorical imperative is thus only a single one, and specifically this: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law,” (Ak 4: 421). To determine whether or not the maxim is universalizable one must first establish the maxim, then consider what the corresponding universal law would be, and finally determine whether or not this universal law is plausible or if it presents a conceptual contradiction. If a maxim being universalized presents a contradiction then one must not do it because it is “impossible to will that their maxims should be elevated to the universality of a natural law, because such a will would contradict itself” (Ak 4: 424).

Kant also presents a second way of considering his ethical standard saying that one must treat “the human being… as end in itself, not merely as means to the discretionary use of this or that will,” (Ak 4: 428). This is to say that one cannot simply use another human being as a means to an end but instead must consider them as an end in and of themselves. Kant also distinguishes between perfect duties, which are the exceptionless imperatives that state one cannot do some action, and the imperfect duties which are those that one ought to do but do not have to do in every situation.

Ethical Consumption Under Capitalism

Is the term “no ethical consumption under capitalism” true? And if so, is it even possible to live a virtuous life if capitalism exists? If it isn’t, is it possible to create an ethical system that allows for virtuous living and what would it look like?

What does Kant define as ethical?

“There is nothing it is possible to think of anywhere in the world, or indeed anything at all outside it, that can be held to be good without limitation, excepting only a good will.”
(9; Ak 4: 393)

Kant provides a framework that claims that the only thing that is purely good is good will. Kant says that universalized maxims can inform one on how to act. If it cannot be applied to every situation, then it is not an ethical decision. The good place does a good job deconstructing the ethical implications of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in which there are the people in charge of the means of production and there are the working class who are often exploited and used as means rather than ends. In order for one group to maintain power and excess of production, another group must be kept down and oppressed. That means that when it comes to consumption, there are hardly any good decisions to be made. A good example of this is in the good place when Chidi is debating what type of muffin to get for breakfast. He is trying to calculate harm reduction and the lesser of two evils, but regardless of the other options, they are both still unethical because of the working conditions people face in order to produce these. Bad things are still bad regardless of the circumstances you have been put in.

Kant would likely criticize the people who formed and participate in this system that gives people little to no option about whether or not they do the right thing, especially because companies and powerful people work hard to mask their immoral behavior. You can’t make autonomous decisions if you don’t have all of the information—the fact that corporations and participants in the system treat workers as means shows that capitalism itself is an immoral system, therefore participation in it is inherently bad. The only way to act ethically is to defy capitalism—so it is likely that Kant would agree with the phrase “no ethical consumption under capitalism.” This doesn’t mean that you cannot live ethically if capitalism exists but only if you are not an active participant in said society.

Kant would say that there’s no inherently ethical system for virtuous living, but a better system would allow for individuals to better make informed decisions because they would be aware of the consequences of what the system is doing. A better system would also encourage doing the right thing rather than rewarding people for selfish behavior. The way Kant’s theory works is that people do the right thing out of duty. A better system would be one with more accountability and transparency, which would directly link to more people acting upon these duties and having more ethical options.

To tie this into the trolley problem, categorical imperatives are commands that you must do regardless of your desires. Kant would likely criticize capitalism for being the system that puts people in the position of being tied to railroad tracks in the first place, and putting the responsibility on others to make decisions (e.g. pulling a lever) that would still lead to an unethical decision. This however, does not change the fact that the action you take under capitalism is that you are often forced to pull the metaphorical lever. Even if you are forced to do a bad thing because of your circumstances, it’s still not morally permissible.

Moral Responsibility to Educate Bigoted Housemates

“A is the only minority within an otherwise homogenous group (let’s say B, C, and D are the rest of the members), who all live together under one roof. While each individual in the group has good intentions and are against any form of bigotry, members of the group unknowingly commit micro-aggressions upon A. A vocalizes these concerns to the group, and is met with uncomfortable silence. B, C, and D don’t want to see themselves as bigots, so they choose to ignore A’s concerns. A recognizes that they themself are not responsible for educating B, C, and D on micro-aggressions, and chooses to spend less time in the house. B, C, and D see A spending less time with them as a sign of rudeness (and during the pandemic, they also see it as a lack of concern for their health), and collectively begin to resent A more and more as time passes.

A is aware of all of this. A wants to educate B, C, and D on their behavior but simultaneously recognizes how futile the endeavor is. A wants to respect themself and their identity by leaving the house, but simultaneously does not want B, C, and D to resent them. Both action and inaction make A’s life more difficult. A does not want to leave this housing arrangement because it would be too financially burdensome, but at the same time recognizes their own deteriorating mental health the longer they stay.

If B, C, and D refuse to change, what obligation does A have to fixing this problem? A can’t completely remove themself from the house, and, with every effort to try to fix the situation, A recognizes that they are being drained of their autonomy and self respect. I am not looking for a solution to this problem (I want to make clear that there is no real one under the condition that B, C, and D refuse to participate), but rather, what obligation does A have to improve their life even if they know fully well that there will be no progress? Is there any obligation to resist oppression at all if all avenues for progress are barred?

An alternative way to say the same question: what obligation does A have in improving their life if both action and inaction result in a net decrease to their well-being?”

There is a lot to unpack here, so I’ll address this in chunks.

“A recognizes that they themself are not responsible for educating B, C, and D on microaggressions”

If the maxim here is I am not responsible for educating people on microaggressions, then the universal law would mean that no one is responsible for educating people on microaggressions. We’ll say that microaggressions are immoral, because if they go unnoticed, they can lead to worse immoral discrimination against groups down the road. Thus, saying that no one is responsible for educating people on microaggressions is impossible, because microaggressions themselves are immoral, so letting them go unnoticed is an immoral act. So, the maxim becomes everyone is responsible for educating people on microaggressions, and no one is exempt from this. If it is a maxim, Kant would say we have an duty to do it even if it goes against our own desires. So, unfortunately, Kant would say that it is your duty to educate your housemates on their microaggressions. However, the outcome itself doesn’t matter; if your housemates choose not to listen, as it seems they are not, it is not your duty to make them listen.

“B, C, and D see A spending less time with them as a sign of rudeness (and during the pandemic, they also see it as a lack of concern for their health), and collectively begin to resent A more and more as time passes. “

Kant says we have a duty to not lie, under any circumstances. However, this is different from not telling the truth. If your housemates are not directly asking you why you are spending less time in the house, it is morally permissible to not tell them. But, if they have asked you, it is your moral duty to tell the truth: that you are leaving the house because the environment they have created is uncomfortable. While the truth hurts in cases like this, telling your housemates why you’re leaving the house may lead to a better discussion about the negative environment they have created for you.

“Is there any obligation to resist oppression at all if all avenues for progress are barred?”

Let’s start by formulating a maxim. Here, it seems like the question would lead us to I will not resist oppression because all avenues for progress are barred. Now, let’s universalize it: Everyone will not resist oppression because all opportunities are barred. If no one resists oppression, no progress in society will be made, and the opportunities that are there will be thrown away. So, it seems like it would be a duty to resist oppression because if one does not, they perpetuate the oppression in society. Just because resisting oppression doesn’t seem to work in every instance doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, because resisting oppression furthers humanity and the autonomy of the oppressed communities.

Synthesis

Kant said “Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in the person of every other, always at the same time as end and never merely as means” (AK4:429). Both problems are problems because they have created a world where it is acceptable to use people as a mere means, like how a cup is used to hold water. The first problem specifically asks about the ethicality of consumption within a capitalist system, Kant would most likely argue that capitalism does treat people as mere objects, so therefore it is an unethical system. This can be seen with companies like Apple and Nike who pay workers in other countries a minimal salary for work in unsafe conditions to produce a product, another example of this is the use of undocumented immigrants in agriculture as a way to pay a fraction of the price for seasonal labor. This system has essentially universalized a law allowing for those in charge of a company to use their employees as a mere means to achieving a large profit, which most people including Kant would say is wrong.

In the second situation we are faced with a similar but slightly altered conundrum. As per how the situation is described to us it seems apparent that persons B, C, and D find it acceptable to allow for their microaggressions to run rampant and destroy the relationship they have with their fourth housemate. It seems as though this majority is aiming to not be viewed as discriminatory whilst still acting in ways that are bigoted, this in itself is immoral because it creates a world with a condriction. This means for them to achieve this goal they must write off or discredit what person A is attempting to convey to them, phrases such as “it is just a joke” or “you are overreacting” achieve just that. By using similar phrases or by ignoring person A altogether the other three housemates are able to use person A’s emotions against them to ultimately achieve their goal, whether it takes the form of person A being less present around the house or ultimately moving out. So if person A is not around to inform them of the bigotry in their actions then they have no reason to think they are doing anything wrong, which enables bigoted behavior.

You mean I Kant act on my disagreements with others?

Are individuals justified in wishing death upon Donald Trump?

TL;DR: This person’s question is quite straightforward. They are wondering if wishing death on the person and president Donald Trump is justified. Perhaps this question must be broadened to include wishing death on any person and whether or not that is justified at all.

According to Kant, yes, individuals may wish death upon Donald Trump because it requires no action. Consider utilization: if everyone were to simply wish death upon Donald Trump (but not actively try to kill him) there would not exist a contradiction. The world would continue to function normally. If we were to take this one step further and ask what would happen if everyone wished death upon everyone else, would there be a contradiction? Our group thinks not because this is not an action, people would not go around killing everyone. Instead, they would have private internal desires for everyone else to die. This does not mean that anyone would die, instead it would foster an individualist society in which we wish death upon others but still partake in cultural norms for our own personal benefit. Most people will choose duty over acting on these wishes and maintain a moral life anyway. Meaning, we can wish death upon others without erupting into chaos.

Kant’s definition of a maxim reveals that morals depend on action, he writes, “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become universal law” (37). He calls the reader to act with a maxim that can be universalized, but thinking about something would not qualify. Since Kant only deals with actions, individuals are justified in wishing for that death upon Donald Trump so long as they do not act on these feelings.

Can I still be friends with someone who does not believe in gay marriage?

TL;DR: This person has an acquaintance who is a part of the Latter Day Saints Church and does not believe in gay marriage. They have been friends since they were kids and now only know that their friend does not share the same beliefs they do. This person is wondering whether or not they should stay friends or not due to differing beliefs.

For Kant, this would result in an impossible world because the maxim is contradictory, meaning that it would be immoral to do this. Kant reasons that every situation can be made into a short statement or maxim, which for this case would be ‘I will not be friends with someone if they have a different worldview than me’. After forming a maxim, Kant says that we should universalize or make it applicable to everyone. The new maxim resulting from this would be ‘Everyone should not be friends with someone if they have a different worldview’. Now, we must assess the universalized maxim and look for any conceptual contradictions.

In the context of this specific situation, Kant would advise this individual to continue being friends with his friend because this maxim is internally contradictory. This individual takes issue with the fact that their friend does not support the fundamental rights of another group of individuals. In this particular context, the outgroup here is the LGBTQ+ community but any other racial, cultural, or social group could be imaged as well for the purposes of this analysis. As previously stated, the maxim here is contradictory because if we universalize the act of unfriending someone for having negative beliefs about certain groups of people, no one would have any friends. As Kant states in a similar situation,

“The case could sometimes arise in which [an individual] needs the love and sympathetic participation of other, and where, through such a natural law arising from his own will, he would rob himself of all the hope of assistance that he wishes for himself.”
Kant, 40

If individuals become completely individualized and the maxim of not being friends with someone because of their different worldview becomes universalized, people would have very little friends. Because humans rely on other humans for “love and sympathetic participation”, this maxim is contradictory to will. Therefore, Kant would say that there is an imperfect duty for this person to keep being friends with his friend who does not believe in gay marriage.