Can anyone help with my homework that I have posted in the Description?
3/2/2016 Film: Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics
https://mycourses.excelsior.edu/bbcswebdav/pid2775727dtcontentrid25111331_1/courses/004_LA_DEVEL_HUM300/module_02/mod02_module_notes_pri… 1/5
Philosopher, Jeremy Bentham.
There are three prim ary schools of ethics:
virtue ethics, teleological, and
deontological ethics. In our first m odule,
w e had the opportunity to explore virtue
ethics. W e now focus on teleological and
deontological ethics, specifically
exam ining tw o of their m ost popular
expressions: utilitarianism and K antian
ethics. W hile virtue ethics focuses on the
integrity of our character in our m oral
decision m aking, teleological ethics tallies
the consequences of our actions, and
deontological ethics dictates our duties in
any given situation. W e also evaluate
how film s, such as B atm an, give us the opportunity to explore and apply these
theories in our daily lives.
U tilita ria n is m
U tilitarianism is an ethical theory in w hich ethical behavior is based on the greatest
good for the m ost people. This concept of the “greatest good” is called the principle
of utility, also know n as the greatest happiness principle. It is often associated w ith a
costbenefit approach in w hich w e w eigh the costs and benefits to stakeholders
involved in the ethical decision. U tilitarianism is closely related to the philosophies of
H edonism and E picureanism because it places value on obtaining pleasure and
avoiding suffering, as m uch as possible.
Tw o philosophers are prim arily credited w ith developing the theory of utilitarian
ethics – Jerem y B entham and John S tuart M ill. B entham w as a social and legal
reform leader and M ill w as a m em ber of the B ritish P arliam ent. A ccording to their
principles, “they believed that w hen interests of various persons conflicted, the best
choice w as that w hich prom oted the interests of the greater num ber” (M acK innon,
2015, p. 56). They also believed that “social policy ought to w ork for the good of all
persons, not just the upper class” (M acK innon, 2015, p. 56).
M ill believed the quality of pleasure should also count in our ethical considerations.
H e believed that intellectual pursuits are m ore valuable than sensual or physical 3/2/2016 Film: Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics
https://mycourses.excelsior.edu/bbcswebdav/pid2775727dtcontentrid25111331_1/courses/004_LA_DEVEL_HUM300/module_02/mod02_module_notes_pri… 2/5
pleasures. B entham believed that w e should only factor the quantity of pleasure, or
to w hat extent it provides pleasure in the greatest am ount to the greatest num ber of
people.
U tilitarianism is a consequentialist theory in that it is concerned w ith the
consequences of the m oral judgm ent, the outcom e of the cost/benefit analysis.
U tilitarians do not place an em phasis on intentions. A n act is still m oral, even if
one’s intentions are for selfinterest.
C ritics charge that teleological theories, such as utilitiarianism , are faulty in their
focus on consequences solely. For exam ple, w ould this theory justify sacrificing a
few people to save m any m ore? If w e m easure the greater good, w ould it be m orally
justified to expel ten people from a lifeboat if it w ould save the lives of 50 others?
For these reasons, w e look to tw o versions of utilitarianism – act and rule. In the act
version, w e look at the particular situation and determ ine if that particular act results
in the greater good. In the rule version, w e look at the practice as a rule for all such
actions and determ ine if the practice w ould result in the greater good.
A ct utilitarianism holds that everyone should perform an act w hich w ill bring about
the greatest good for everyone im pacted by that specific act. A ct utilitarians believe
that you cannot establish rules to cover all situations, so you need to base your
decision on the specific act considered at the tim e. In a specific act, for exam ple, it
m ight be okay to lie. It m ay not be okay to lie in another instance, if it w ill harm m ore
people than it w ill help.
R ule U tilitarianism m aintains that w e do not determ ine virtues according to a
specific act, w e follow the rules at all tim es, unless w e have established exceptions
in rare cases. For exam ple, w e m ight establish the rule that w e should never lie,
except to save our lives.
K a n tia n E th ic s
Im m anuel K ant w as a G erm an philosophy professor in the m id to late 1700s, w ho is
considered one of the greatest m odern philosophers. H e believed that the w ay
hum ans perceive and understand things and concepts shapes their experience of
the w orld around them . A s a philosopher, he asked a fundam ental question, “W hat
ought I do?” H e w rote tw o papers in w hich he discussed this question – The
Fundam ental P rinciples of M etaphysics of M orals (in 1785), and the C ritique of
P ractical R eason (in 1788). In his w ritings, K ant explains that an act does not have 3/2/2016 Film: Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics
https://mycourses.excelsior.edu/bbcswebdav/pid2775727dtcontentrid25111331_1/courses/004_LA_DEVEL_HUM300/module_02/mod02_module_notes_pri… 3/5
Philosopher,
Philippa Foot.
m oral w orth based on its consequences because the consequences are not alw ays
in our control. R ather, an act has m oral w orth based on our intentions for doing
good. W e should strive to do our duty and em ploy the right m otive to practice
goodw ill in our m oral decisions.
K ant’s concept of the categorical im perative is a m oral obligation to guide us
tow ard w hat w e ought to do. These categorical im peratives tell us w hat w e ought to
do no m atter w hat the circum stances. K ant describes a m oral im perative as being
universal. It is the right thing for m e to do and the right thing for others to do;
therefore, it is sim ilar to a m oral law . In his reasoning, if you ask yourself prior to any
action, “W hat if everyone did it?” and the consequences are destructive, then you
should not take that action. W e should consider the im pact of actions on society
w hen contem plating m oral decisions, place value on hum an life and respect people
as being autonom ous individuals. K ant’s categorical im perative philosophy
em bodies the spirit of im partiality, w here w e respect people equally, regardless of
their differences.
W hat happens w hen w e have conflicts betw een our m ost im perative duties? K ant
believes that som e duties are absolute, m oral im peratives such as honesty. O ther
philosophers w ho follow K ant’s universalism concepts believe that w e m ust m ake a
decision about w hich duty is stronger. For exam ple, contem porary philosopher W .D .
R oss believes if the choice is betw een honesty and loyalty, w e m ust m ake a
decision about w hich of them is the m ost im portant im perative. A nother
contem porary philosopher John R aw ls believed that the principles of justice can
help guide us to do the right thing.
M a rk D . W h ite o n T e le o lo g y a n d D e o n to lo g y
In W hy D oesn’t B atm an K ill the Joker?,W hite explores this question
by applying both teleological and deontological perspectives. This
question is a pressing issue for B atm an fans and critics, as the Joker
is B atm an’s m ost form idable and dangerous foe. Indeed, the Joker
escapes from the A rkham A sylum only to have B atm an put him back
in the “revolving door” (p. 164). B atm an is aw are that the Joker w ill
continue to escape and kill again, but B atm an still refuses to kill him
on the prem ise that if he kills the Joker, “it w ould m ake him as bad as the crim inals
he is sw orn to fight” (p. 164).
B atm an’s position fits w ell w ith the deontological approach to ethics w hich holds that 3/2/2016 Film: Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics
https://mycourses.excelsior.edu/bbcswebdav/pid2775727dtcontentrid25111331_1/courses/004_LA_DEVEL_HUM300/module_02/mod02_module_notes_pri… 4/5
“the m orality of an act is based on features intrinsic to the act itself, regardless of the
consequences stem m ing from the act. To deontologists, the ends never justify the
m eans, but rather the m eans m ust be justifiable on their ow n m erits” (p. 1656).
K illing is sim ply w rong, regardless the context or circum stance.
C onversely, utilitarians w ould contend that killing the Joker w ould yield m ore
pleasure or benefit for the greatest num ber of people, and therefore w ould be w ell
w orth it. W hite surm ises:
S uperheroes, how ever, generally are not utilitarians. S ure, they like
happiness and w ellbeing as m uch as the ordinary person, but there are
certain things they w ill not do to achieve them . O f course, crim inals know
this and use it to their advantage: after all, w hy do you think crim inals
take innocent people as hostages? S uperheroes – just like police in the
real w orld – norm ally w on’t risk innocent lives to apprehend a villain,
even if it m eans preventing the villain from killing m ore people later.
M ore generally, m ost superheroes w ill not kill, even to save m any other
lives (p. 165).
The question of w hether or not B atm an should kill the Joker is one of m any m odern
versions of an ageold philosophical problem . P hilosopher P hilippa Foot, w ho
helped to form ulate the m odern version of virtue ethics, best characterizes this
classic m oral dilem m a in her form ulation of the Trolley P roblem . It goes like this:
there is a trolley car heading dow n the tracks, soon to crash into five people w ho w ill
not be able to hear the trolley, nor rem ove them selves from the tracks in tim e. The
trolley w ill not be able to stop either, unless, the person at the controls diverts the
trolley to another track. U nfortunately, there is also som eone else on the other track
w ho is in the sam e dilem m a of not being able to hear the trolley or m ove in tim e. If
you are the controller, do you allow the train to hit the five people or do you actively
intervene to divert the trolley to the other track, killing the one person?
O f course, there are m any consequences of this action, especially considering the
difference betw een actively m urdering som eone or passively allow ing som eone to
die. P hilosopher Judith Jarvis Thom son’s offers us variations of the Trolley P roblem ,
considering all of the hypotheticals w hich m ight influence one’s decision to divert the
trolley onto another track or not. A rguably, the key difference betw een the Joker and
the Trolley dilem m a seem s to be that the Joker is a bad guy and he actively puts
people in danger. Though, he him self is a staunch deontologist, W hite ultim ately
concludes that B atm an should kill the Joker: 3/2/2016 Film: Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics
https://mycourses.excelsior.edu/bbcswebdav/pid2775727dtcontentrid25111331_1/courses/004_LA_DEVEL_HUM300/module_02/mod02_module_notes_pri… 5/5
A s m uch as w e deontologists say the right alw ays com es before the
good, an incredible am ount of good w ould have been done if the Joker’s
life had been ended years ago (p. 171).
R e fe re n c e s
A lexander, Larry and M oore, M ichael, “D eontological E thics,” The S tanford
E ncyclopedia of P hilosophy (S pring 2015 E dition), E dw ard N . Zalta (ed.), U R L =
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/ethicsdeontological/.
Irw in, W illiam . and Johnson, D avid K yle. (2010). Introducing P hilosophy Through
P op C ulture: From S ocrates to S outh P ark, H um e to H ouse. W est S ussex, U nited
K ingdom : W ileyB lackw ell.
C hapter 16, W hy D oesn’t B atm an K ill the Joker?
Johnson, R obert, “K ant's M oral P hilosophy,” The S tanford E ncyclopedia of
P hilosophy (S um m er 2014 E dition), E dw ard N . Zalta (ed.), R etrieved from :
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum 2014/entries/kantm oral.
M acK innon, B . (2015). E thics: Theory & contem porary issues C oncise edition (8th
ed.). B oston, M A : W adsw orth, C engage Learning.
N eher, W . & S andin, P . (2007). C om m unicating ethically: C haracter duties,
consequences, and relationships. B oston, M A : P earson.
S innottA rm strong, W alter, “C onsequentialism ”, The S tanford E ncyclopedia of
P hilosophy (S pring 2014 E dition), E dw ard N . Zalta (ed.). R etrieved from :
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/consequentialism .