fedg
Kant argues that utilitarianism allows for expediency and bad actions to occur and become habitual. He explains that this is bad because utilitarianism allows moral laws to be broken. Further he discusses his problem with the principle of utility and consequentialism. Kant views that if we follow the principle of utility, there is no possibility of higher and lower pleasures, therefore making the Life of Pigs argument invalid. The principle of utility seems to allow for actions of expediency and justifies doing immoral actions if they can get away with it. This ultimately permits people to act selfish as long as the actions themselves aren’t bad. Utilitarianism does not a have a counter to this argument, instead it allows for actions that should not be allowed. It can lead to erroneous effects from a series of bad actions, such as racism.
Utilitarianism doesn’t allow for inalienable rights and the dignity of human beings. When someone suggest they have rights, one must question where they came from because there is nothing inalienable to them. According to utilitarianism, murder can be okay if the consequences are good, disregarding the dignity of human life. Kant doesn’t agree with this and speaks of Kantian deontology that preserves the right and dignity of other people. His thinking is founded on a priori ethics and having universal principles that everyone can follow. He believes in transcendental metaphysics. We never see the world in itself, it is always filtered through the concepts of understanding.
Kant continues by explaining the relationship between reason and happiness. Kant says the purpose of reason is to produce a good will, never to produce happiness. Reason is bad for happiness because it cannot produce it easily. Reason alone allows us to attain a good will. The will is the faculty of choice and what ultimately chooses. The good will is the only thing that is unqualifiedly good. This is the principle of the good for Kant because choosing the right thing according to the right maxims is the moral law based on a priori and can’t be contradictory. Contradiction, universality and the moral principle says that for every immoral action, lies a contradicting law against it. Kant says that a maxim is contradictory when it holds that others should not hold this maxim. Kant says you should act from duty. When one acts from duty they are acting from the moral principle and are obligated to carry out the good will.
According to Kant, the principle through which we act morally from is the categorical imperative. The three formulations that come from the CI are 1) act only in such a way that you could want the maxim of your action to become a universal law, 2) act in such a way that you always treat other people not merely as means to some end, but also as ends in themselves, and 3) act as such that your maxim could be along the kingdom of ends. These three formulations that actions of expediency are never allowed because it treats yourself or someone else as a means or a tool. By treating them as a means you are violating their inalienable rights and their autonomy. In order to avoid this Kant says the will is only good when it is autonomous. In order to be autonomous it must act from the categorical imperative and behave in a way that reflects duty. By acting from duty you will truly manifest the good will.
In Aristotle’s account for the soul he talks about substance. He describes substance as any basic, living thing. He then breaks down substance into three categories, matter, form and the hylomorphic complex. Matter is potentiality, form is actuality and the hylomorphic complex is matter and form. It is from these three categories that Aristotle gives us the first definition of the soul. The first definition states that the soul is the form of a body, which has potential life in it. It is in this first definition that Aristotle identifies the soul as actuality.
Following the first definition, Aristotle uses the Hierarchy of Potentiality to Actuality to explain substance and the soul. The hierarchy consists of four levels which consist of no potentiality, potentiality, 1st actuality and 2nd actuality. Potentiality means that something has the potential to do something in the future, while no potentiality means it has no potential to do that thing. For instance, a baby has the potentiality to learn geometry, but a plant has no potentiality to learn geometry. First actuality means that something has the potential and capacity to do something, but are not currently doing it. Finally, second actuality means that something is actually performing the task that is has the potential to perform.
From this hierarchy we are able to obtain the second and third definitions of the soul. The second definition of the soul is that it is the first actuality of a body that is potentially alive. We say that a body is potentially alive because we hold all the capabilities and organs to be a functioning human being. This idea is further developed in the third definition. The third definition of the soul is that it is the first actuality of a natural organic body; this means it is an organized body containing organs that is able to carry out a specific function.