Introduction to Bentham and Kant

Welcome to one of the most important chapters in your Ethics studies! In this section, we are looking at two "heavyweights" of philosophy: Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant. Even though they lived around the same time, they had completely opposite ideas about how we should decide what is "right" and "wrong."

Think of it like this: If you saw someone steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family, would you say they were right or wrong? Bentham would look at the consequences (the family is fed), while Kant would look at the action itself (stealing is always wrong). By the end of these notes, you will be able to compare their methods and see how they fit—or don't fit—with religious views.

1. Jeremy Bentham: The Practical Thinker

Jeremy Bentham was the founder of Utilitarianism. In the world of Meta-ethics, Bentham is a Naturalist. This means he believed that "goodness" is a natural property we can observe in the world—specifically, he linked it to pleasure.

The Principle of Utility

Bentham’s famous quote is that nature has placed us under two "sovereign masters": pain and pleasure. His "Principle of Utility" (utility just means usefulness) suggests that an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

How Bentham Decides: The Hedonic Calculus

Bentham didn't want moral decisions to be based on feelings or traditions. He wanted them to be mathematical! He created the Hedonic Calculus, a list of seven criteria to measure how much pleasure an action would create:

  • Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
  • Duration: How long will it last?
  • Certainty: How sure are we that it will happen?
  • Propinquity (Remoteness): How soon will it happen?
  • Fecundity (Richness): Will it lead to even more pleasure later?
  • Purity: How free from pain is it?
  • Extent: How many people will it affect?

Key Takeaway: Bentham’s approach is teleological (focused on the end goal) and consequentialist (focused on what happens as a result). If the "maths" adds up to more pleasure than pain, the action is right.

2. Immanuel Kant: The Rule Follower

Immanuel Kant took a completely different path. He believed that morality has nothing to do with consequences or feelings. Instead, it is all about reason and duty. His theory is called Deontology (from the Greek word 'deon', meaning duty).

The Good Will and Duty

Kant argued that the only thing in the world that is "good without qualification" is a Good Will. Doing the right thing because you feel like it, or because it makes people happy, isn't "moral" to Kant. You must do the right thing simply because it is your duty.

The Categorical Imperative

How do we know what our duty is? Kant uses the Categorical Imperative—a command that applies to everyone, all the time. He gave us two main ways to check our actions:

  1. The Formula of the Law of Nature (Universalisation): Before you act, ask yourself: "Would I want this action to become a universal law that everyone must follow?" If you wouldn't want everyone to lie, then you must never lie.
  2. The Formula of the End in Itself (Humanity Formula): Never treat people as a "means to an end." This means you shouldn't use people to get what you want. Every human has autonomy (the ability to choose) and must be treated with respect.

Key Takeaway: Kant’s approach is deontological. It is based on fixed rules and the motive behind the action, not the outcome.

3. Comparing Bentham and Kant

To help you in your exam (especially for AO1 questions), here is a quick comparison of their decision-making processes:

Feature Jeremy Bentham Immanuel Kant
Main Focus Consequences (What happens?) Duty/Action (What am I doing?)
Motivation Seeking pleasure/avoiding pain Doing the right thing for its own sake
Flexibility Very flexible (depends on the situation) Strict (rules are absolute)
View of People People are "vessels" for happiness People have intrinsic dignity/rights

Common Mistake to Avoid: Don't assume Kant is "mean" because he doesn't care about happiness. He actually thinks that if everyone did their duty, the world would be a better place—but he believes duty must come first!

4. Consistency with Religious Decision-Making

This is a major part of your syllabus! You need to evaluate how far these two thinkers agree with religious ethics (like Natural Moral Law or Situation Ethics).

Is Bentham Consistent with Religion?

Yes (Consistent):

  • Many religions teach that we should care for the well-being of others. Bentham’s focus on the "greatest number" reflects the religious idea of altruism (selfless concern for others).
  • Situation Ethics (Joseph Fletcher) is a religious theory that, like Bentham, focuses on the outcome (the most loving result).
No (Inconsistent):
  • Most religions believe in absolute moral laws (e.g., The Ten Commandments). Bentham’s theory allows you to break these rules if it leads to more pleasure (e.g., lying to save a life).
  • Religions usually view "goodness" as something defined by God, whereas Bentham defines it as a natural physical feeling (pleasure).

Is Kant Consistent with Religion?

Yes (Consistent):

  • Kant’s "Universal Law" is very similar to the Golden Rule found in many religions: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
  • Like Natural Moral Law (Aquinas), Kant uses reason to find moral truths.
  • Kant emphasizes the dignity of the human person, which matches the religious idea that humans are made in the "image of God."
No (Inconsistent):
  • Kant emphasizes autonomy (reasoning for yourself). Religion often emphasizes heteronomy (following rules given by a higher authority, like God or Scripture).
  • Kant argues we should do our duty for the sake of duty, not because God commanded it or because we want to go to heaven.

Quick Review: Summary of Key Points

Bentham's Utilitarianism:

  • Goal: Maximize pleasure, minimize pain (\( Happiness = Pleasure - Pain \)).
  • Method: The Hedonic Calculus.
  • Pros: Practical, focuses on results.
  • Cons: Can justify "bad" actions if they make the majority happy.

Kant's Deontology:

  • Goal: Follow your duty and the Categorical Imperative.
  • Method: Universalisation and treating people as ends.
  • Pros: Protects individual rights, provides clear rules.
  • Cons: Can be too cold and strict (e.g., never lying, even to a murderer).

Religious Consistency:

  • Kant is closer to the rules of religion (Natural Moral Law).
  • Bentham is closer to the compassion and flexibility of some modern religious ethics (Situation Ethics).