Other systems

I thought I would spend some time looking at other systems of moral and ethical values in order to explain why I think mine is better. We have utilitarianism, Kant's categorical imperative and John Rawls approach as examples.

With utilitarianism my objections are hardly original. The idea of the greatest good for the greatest number seems intuitive enough. However, when you it in more detail it falls apart. There are two basic approaches to interpreting this doctrine. The most common is to take it to mean that we should add up the pleasure that each individual gets from each outcome and choose the one that leads to the greatest sum.

The problem with this is that there is no way to reach a consensus on what numbers we should use to represent the pleasures that various individuals derive from various outcomes. Generally the only way that we have of telling how much pleasure people get is by observing the choices that they make. However, there is no way to derive a unique set of numbers from a given set of choices. For example, if we were to multiply all of the numbers used to describe a certain individual's pleasure, then this would not change any prediction about that individual's choices. However, it would change the sum of pleasures.

Another method is to take the phrase greatest good for the greatest number literally. Each outcome will produce a greatest amount of good for each individual. The one we will choose is the one that produces that maximum for the greatest number of individuals effected. This leads to a problem that such preferences need not be transitive. A common, simple example of this is represented by an equilateral triangle. Three individuals are represented by the corners. Each wants to select a point closer to their own corner. There are three different majorities made up of two people. Each will prefer some point on the line connecting their two points. However, since it is impossible to choose a point that will be on all three lines at the same time, regardless of which point is chosen, there will be two people who would prefer some other point.

In addition to these objections, many question whether it would really be acceptable to make one person worse off in order to please a greater number or please some other person to a greater extent.

Next there is the categorical imperative. Many people are impressed with this, however I don't think there is anything there. The categorical imperative is that you should act only so that the rule on which your action is based would be one that you would want everyone to follow. Actions can be consistent with rules or they can violate them. However, it is not possible to derive a unique set of rules from a given set of actions. Since this is not possible, we cannot apply the categorical imperative. It is quite simply nonsense.

Naturally there are many cases where we could see that the application of universal and general rules would improve things. Indeed they play a prominent role in my ethics. The problem is that there are some instances when it is not desirable by anyone that everyone do the same thing. For example we would not say that someone was applying a good system of moral and ethical values if they decided not to practice medicine because if everyone were to do so, then no one would produce any food. We generally want people to tell the truth, be kind to others and to avoid violence, but we would not want everyone to enter the same profession. There are some areas where we want universality and generality, but others where we want diversity.

Next I will consider the approach that John Rawls takes in his Theory of Justice. First it is based on an ideal state of society. This seems like a bad approach in and of itself. Since we must give blame and credit to individuals, it would seem better to try to come up with methods for evaluating their conduct.

John Rawls does not make it easy to evaluate that conduct. First we would have to determine to what extent our society followed his principles. One of them is that inequalities should be arranged so that they lead to a better outcome for the least well off than would be the case under a more equal system. In order to determine whether a given society actually does this, it would be necessary to have a way of determining how things would be under an alternate system. There is no consensus here. Next we must determine who is responsible for those forms of inequality that are not legitimate according to this rule. There may be more than one way of addressing this inequality. Without a general agreement about who is to bear the expense of improving the well-being of the least well off, this system will not produce agreement.