Altruism is an unselfish act wherein one’s intention is to benefit another. Within every act, three aspects must be considered: the motivation behind the act; the moral value of the individual carrying out the act; and the selfish consequences of the act itself. Both Kant and Rand agree on using moral values to make decisions on an act, however, Kant believes the act should not be self-serving and Rand believes the act should be to promote one’s self.
In consideration of the first two aspects, being the motivation behind the act, and the moral value of the individual carrying out the act, Kant and Rand utilize methods of moral measurement. Kant’s Three Pillars of duty, universalizability and respect must be considered before the individual will fulfill the obligation set forth. Fulfilling a sense of duty means that the act is the right thing to do and is aligned to your moral values.
Universalizability takes into consideration three maxims: the motivating reasons of the agent, the act itself and the universal system of reason. This means that if your decision to act is fair to one, it must be fair to all. Furthermore, you would become suspicious in your decision to act if it went against your moral values. Respect is the final Pillar in that Kant believes humanity must be treated as an end in itself, never as a means to an end. He goes on to say that we must never take away an individual’s autonomy in the decision-making process while carrying out an act. We should always respect people’s opinions or views, regardless if they are in conflict with our own.
Rand also uses a measurement in considering the motive and morals of the act. She believes two questions should be asked: What are the values; and, who should be the beneficiary of the act. The values should be clearly apparent, that is, they should be black and white. In order for an act to be good and to move forward with it, it must be for the benefit of another. If an act is done solely for one’s self, it is bad. The decision to act is based on how you, as an individual, hierarchically position your moral values. Rand believes that a higher priority value should always overtake a less priority value.
It is clear that while both Kant and Rind’s systems of measuring the value of an act are different, comparatively, they are morally based to create the motivation to carry out the act.
In consideration of the third aspect of carrying out an act, being the selfish consequences of an act, Kant and Rand differ significantly. Kant believes that no act should be self-serving and that the selfish consequence of carrying out an act is irrelevant. For Kant, the moral value of the act takes precedence in all cases, regardless. Rand believes, conversely, that one’s own self-flourishing from the act is a necessary consideration, but not a motive in itself to allow you to do anything. Rand requires that there be a self-benefit, in addition to moral value, when making the decision to act.
In conclusion, Kant and Rand both use measuring tools to identify if one should fulfill and act, however, they differ in regards to self-interest. Ultimately, it is this final aspect which separates their views on altruism.
Rawls and the Ethics of Consequences
Discuss Rawls’ argument regarding practices and actions. Discuss this in light of punishment or promises.
In order to understand Rawls’ arguments regarding practices and actions in light of punishment or promises, we must examine the theory of utilitarianism. It is a moral theory promoting pleasure over pain. That is, we should act in accordance with a set of rules that will produce the greatest overall amount of pleasure or happiness in a society. This incorporates the Principal of Utility which is to act so as to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.
A practice is a set of rules within the foundation of utilitarianism. Practices as a whole support the greatest amount of utility. Practices must be acted out in order to fulfill utilitarianism. Therefore, we perform acts, that follow rules, that support practices. In effect, the individuals of a society all agree to promise to follow the rules within that society in order to maintain the greatest amount of utility.
When an action is carried out that goes against the rules within a practice, meaning that an offence has been committed, then the premise of utilitarianism has been compromised. In effect, the breaking of a rule is the breaking of a promise. The society must then, at this point, determine if the individuals’ breaking of the promise was in personal consideration of the rule of utility. If the greater good has not been considered, in order to once again satisfy the rule of utility, a retribution or punishment must be forthcoming.
The punishment of an offence is dependent upon the severity of an offence. If, however, the breaking of the promise is justifiably made in consideration of the greater good, and if it can be explained and defended as such, then it can supercede the retribution or punishment set forth by society.
Rawls defines rules as guides and aids, maxims which have been tested by society. As such, rules are open to interpretation and re-evaluation. However, in order to do so, the rule must have been broken and defended enough times that the original rule no longer promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. The re-evaluation of a rule is necessary in order to re-establish the rule of utility. Thus, society’s dependence upon utilitarianism is crucial in order to maintain a progressive living society.
In summary, the utilitarian perspective of a society relies on promises to uphold rules that are established from various practices which creates the greatest utility for society in general. The breaking of promises, if not defended, will receive punishment. If broken promises are defended, however, then utility is maintained.
Ethics of Justice
Explain Rawl’s egalitarianism. Your response should discuss the original position, the basic rights principle and the difference principle. What would be Rawls’s response.
Egalitarianism holds the view that all persons have equal social, economic and political rights. Rawls’ A Theory of Justice outlines two principles of justice: The Basic Right Principle; and, the Difference Principle. The Basic Rights Principle states that individual liberties are distributed equally within society. The Difference Principle ensures that all social structures have access to equality. Furthermore, the social structures would ensure that the greatest benefit goes to the least in society to create absolute equality. In effect, Rawls believes that the many injustices of society must be entirely eliminated through social contracts, to the extent that justice must be distributed deliberately and equally to all.
Rawls basic theory is that people would choose the principles of justice in their ‘original position,” meaning that they choose them based on basic self-interest. This puts people in the original position behind a veil of ignorance,’ ignorant of their differences and injustices. As soon as this ignorance is compromised, created differences between individuals, agreement upon principles would be unlikely. Therefore, the Basic Rights Principle would have to be applied, equalizing those differences.
Affirmative action is a set of public policies and initiatives designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In its original intention, affirmative action was to create a level playing field for all members of society. However, with the degradation of this Basic Rights Principle to create equality, inequality has since been created in that preferential- not equal – treatment is being given to those who are inequal.” In fact, rather than creating equality between all individuals, affirmative action instead elevates those formerly inequal individuals to a level of superiority over others.
The original affirmative action theory would be supported by Rawls Theory of Justice due to the Difference Principle in that it guarantees the equal rights of all individuals in society. In theory, this would in turn support his Basic Rights Priniciple since liberties would be distributed in a particular manner, equally.
How is it possible, then, that these well-intentions have created an inequal social structure? Rawls discusses the veil of ignorance, in that people’s original position is compromised by that which they are exposed to and told to believe. The conflicts that arise as a result are due to the fact that they are no longer ignorant of their injustices: The “veil” has been lifted. Now, injustices must be equalized. As such, affirmative action cannot be legislated. The very basis of attempting to equalize the natural physical difference in appearance of people is impossible once the veil of ignorance is gone and the original position is compromised.
While Rawls position on Affirmative Action would have been in support of the original theory, it can no longer be said that his egalitarianist position would support the current failing state of Affirmative Action.
