Understanding Epicureanism, Utilitarianism, and Kantian Ethics
Epicureanism, founded by Epicurus, posits that the wise person seeks self-sufficiency. Happiness is achieved through pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Empirical research into the motives of human behavior is fundamental to discovering pleasure. The guiding principle is to live according to nature. It is an ethic of the State of Nature. The wise person is cautious, moderately happy, and virtuous because they know how to enjoy life. Moral reasoning is a calculation. The scientist estimates the activities that yield more pleasure and less pain, organizing their life to maximize intense and lasting pleasures. Morality, therefore, is the art of living happily.
Utilitarianism defines utility as the property of any object to produce advantage, benefit, pleasure, or happiness. Good moral actions lead to the happiness of others. The theory of pleasure is collective, aiming for collective happiness. Sympathy is the human capacity to understand another’s desire to obtain the most pleasure as a motive for happiness. The principle of morality and rational decision-making is to achieve the maximum possible happiness for the greatest number of people, approving or disapproving any action based on its tendency to increase or decrease pleasure. Pleasures are distinguished by their quality; there are upper and lower pleasures. Utilitarianism claims that human beings work together towards a more prosperous and happy society.
The utilitarianism of the measure, the responsibility for the consequences, requires assessing the correctness of every action by its consequences. The rule-utilitarianism on the intention or conviction, requires considering whether the action is subject to any of the rules considered by moral goodness.
Deontological ethics, with Kant as its main proponent, focuses on identifying universally valid rational formal features. Kant argues that seeking material ethical good in human beings through theology, ontology, or sociology presents a human subject as unable to explain themselves as free beings capable of creating their own laws and purposes. The human is determined to work for a good that has been given and before which behaves passively. Experience says whatever it is, but it should be and it is also subjective. According to Kant, ethics must begin by asking about duty, not good. The good is to meet the specific moral duty, as moral good is the specific willingness. The moral law dictates that the will is in the form of a categorical imperative, not a hypothetical imperative, which only requires action if you want to achieve a specific goal, and that required action is just a means to achieve it. For Kant, the fundamental question of ethics is: What should I do?
Moral duties are expressed in rules, so the question becomes: Under what conditions should a moral standard apply such that it can be regarded as such and which might oblige? This evidence of universality seems so obvious that it’s based. Goodwill imposes moral obligation on itself through a categorical imperative. Such an imperative expresses a duty to be obeyed out of pure respect for it. It is the duty of duty, something you should or should not do. Acting according to duty is to act morally. This categorical imperative is formal and indicates that the legislature will be considering doing universal.