R.M. Hare’s Kantian Utilitarianism

1
R.M. Hares Kantian Utilitarianism

• Two-level utilitarianism or Kantian
  Utilitarianism is an attempt to accommodate
  deontological intuitions (Kantian
  universalizability) within the framework of
  utilitarianism by synthesizing both act
  utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
• In summary, a person's moral decisions should be
  based on a set of 'intuitive' moral rules
  (derived from the logical feature of moral
  knowledge, common preferences of humanity, etc)
  except in certain rare situations (e.g., prima
  facie principles conflict, unusual cases) where
  it is more appropriate to engage in a 'critical'
  level of act utilitarianism.

2
R. M. Hares Two Level Utilitarian Model

• Act utilitarianism states that in all cases the
  morally right action is the one which produces
  the most pleasure.
• Rule utilitarianism states that the morally right
  action is the one that is in accordance with a
  moral rule whose general observance would create
  the most happiness.
• In terms of two-level utilitarianism, act
  utilitarianism can be likened to the 'critical'
  level of moral thinking, and rule utilitarianism
  to the 'intuitive' level.

3
Basic Argument

• 1. The logic of moral terms like "ought
• a. Moral judgments are by their nature
  universalizable (they are more than simple
  imperatives, they commit one to making the
  same ought judgment in all circumstances that
  share the same universal features moral
  thinking is a rational pursuit).
• 2. Facts about human nature and commonly held
  human preferences (human condition)
• a. Human basic preferences tend to be uniform
• b. Humans vary on their ability to think
  critically and act on what they determine to
  be moral principles.
• 3. Warrants a two-level version of utilitarianism.

4
Regarding the Intuitive Level (Kantian/Rule)

• The Intuitive Level is composed of prima facie
  principles or rules derived from the logical
  features of moral language (universalizable ought
  claims) and general facts commonly held moral
  preferences. They are also informed by 2nd level
  principles. Thus, a morally right action is an
  accordance with a moral rule whose general
  observance would create the most happiness. Prima
  facie principles are beneficial when there isn't
  time for critical thinking, or when one can't
  trust one's critical thinking.

These rules are generated by the logical
features of moral language they are by nature
universalizable. This means that moral judgments
are more than simple imperatives for they commit
one to making the same ought judgment in all
circumstances that share the same universal
features (e.g., let no one _________ at least,
under such and such experience).
The Intuitive level is also informed by Critical
Level when it comes to unusual cases, etc (rule
utilitarianism).
The Intuitive level also involves general facts
preferences commonly held by humanity.
5
Three Kinds of Intuitive Principles

• According to Dr. Gary Varner, a proponent of this
  view, notes
• Common Morality
• Professional Ethics
• Personal Morality

6
Three Kinds of Intuitive Level Principles
Common Morality emerges when members of society
face similar problems. This is expected because
of the universal features of the human condition
as evidenced in the common moralities of various
cultures at different times and
places. Professional Ethics emerge because of
the similar kinds of situations repeatedly
certain roles experience agreements on basic
standards of conduct take place. Personal
Morality. Dr. Varner writes, And insofar as
individuals differ in their abilities to reason
critically under various circumstances, critical
thinking will lead different individuals to train
themselves to adhere to different sets of
intuitive level rules, including "metaprinciples"
for deciding when to engage in critical thinking
and when to stick unquestioningly to one's
intuitive level principles.
7
Regarding the Critical Level (Act Utilitarian)
When you encounter (1) an unusual situation, (2)
determine that two prima facie rules contradict
each other, (3) or where the normal rules would
specify a course of action that is clearly not
the most beneficial, changing ones mode of moral
thinking to the critical act utilitarian level is
necessary (utility needs to be maximized).
Act utilitarianism is a necessary compliment to
rule utilitarianism because in some cases an
individual might pursue a course of action that
would obviously not maximize utility. Conversely,
act utilitarianism is criticized for not allowing
for a 'human element' in its calculations, i.e.
it is sometimes too difficult (or impossible) for
an ordinary person with imperfect knowledge to
calculate the action of maximal utility
8
Description of ModelEach person shares the
traits of the following to limited and varying
extents at different times

• Prole
• 1. Human weaknesses to an extreme degree.
• 2. Must rely upon intuitions and sound prima
  facie principles all of the time.
• Incapable of critical thought.
• The set of intuitive moral rules must be simple,
  general, easy to memorize, and use.

• Archangel
• Only uses critical moral thinking no intuitive
  principles are needed.
• Superhuman, god-like powers of knowledge,
  thought, and no human weaknesses.
• Unbiased, ideal observer who can immediately scan
  all potential consequences of all possible
  actions in order to frame a universal principle
  form which it could decide an appropriate action
  for the situation.

9
Advantages declared about this view

• It offers a non-consequential outlook on the
  intuitive level it is not a pure picture of
  utilitarianism.
• It accommodates the kind of claims, duties, and
  rights that might be held to be part of a
  deontological morality.
• It is compatible with consequentialism at the
  critical level and is a source of those guides
  at the intuitive level.
• Because of the intuitive level, a number of
  classical objections have been, according to
  many, successfully rejected.

10
Objection 1 Not enough time to carry out
calculations needed to maximize pleasure.

• It is often claimed that one could never in
  practice be a utilitarian because one could never
  actually have enough time to carry out the minute
  calculations involving happiness ratings and
  probabilities that a utilitarian must take into
  account. This objection is answered by invoking
  the intuitive level of moral thinking.

11
Objection 2 Special Pleading

• Second, some critiques claim that utilitarianism
  leads inevitably to special pleading, since at
  every step along the way in the utilitarian
  calculus one may take ones own happiness into
  account more than others. This objection is
  replied to in the very same way as the last. The
  intuitive level keeps special pleading from
  happening, at least keeps it from happening as
  much as any other moral theory does.
• For we have these intuitive principles that
  apply to almost every case, and that are
  ingrained in our moral consciences. So, when I
  see something in the store that Id like to have,
  I dont have to go through a calculus about it.
  I just know that unless this situation
  constitutes a moral dilemma (i.e. unless there is
  a contradiction between intuitive moral
  principles) I shouldnt steal. There is no room
  for special pleading there.

12
Objection 3 Utilitarianism fails to account
for moral tragedy

• A third critique sometimes aimed at
  utilitarianism is that it fails to account for
  moral tragedy. There seem to be cases, this
  argument goes, wherein we have two mutually
  exclusive duties to fulfill and therefore cannot
  fulfill one of our duties. This is tragic. R.M.
  Hare responds to this problem by saying it isnt
  a problem because thats what the critical level
  of moral thinking is there for. He quotes a
  humorous line from Anthony Kenny (who was himself
  quoting from someone else, I believe a pastor of
  a church) If you have conflicting duties, one
  of them isnt your duty. In other words, if you
  have conflicting duties youve encountered a
  moral dilemma. And moral dilemmas require
  critical moral thinking. Once you get down to
  critical moral thinking youll see that one of
  the things you supposed was your duty really
  wasnt.

13
4th Objection Internal Conflict

• Fourth, utilitarians have been accused of
  implying that answers to certain moral quandaries
  are obvious when in fact, even if the utilitarian
  solution ends up being right, it was not at all
  obvious. Bernard Williams, for one, makes this
  critique by invoking the well-known example of
  Jim, a scientist travelling through a South
  American country who accidentally stumbles into
  the center of a village only to see 20 natives
  lined up against a wall firing squad style and
  the local enforcer Pedro about to mow them down.
  On seeing Jim, Pedro tells him that he was about
  to shoot these innocent people just to make an
  example to the townspeople, but since the town is
  so honored to have the presence of the foreign
  scientist, they will have a celebration. If Jim
  will just take Pedros gun and shoot one innocent
  person, the 19 others can go free. On
  utilitarian grounds it is clear what the right
  answer is, whereas, Williams argues, we have a
  great deal of internal conflict about what the
  right answer is, and that this cannot be captured
  by the utilitarians position.

14
4th Objection Internal Conflict

• Hare would respond to this argument by insisting
  that the utilitarian could in fact explain the
  cause of the internal conflict that makes the
  decision seem less than obvious. It is precisely
  because intuitive principles have, for good
  reason, been so deeply ingrained in our moral
  psyche, that we experience a great deal of
  internal psychological discomfort whenever one of
  these principles (like Dont kill innocents)
  has to be violated. And the more intense the
  principle isa principle about lying is likely to
  be less psychologically intense than a principle
  about killingthe greater this internal conflict.
  That is why the Jim/Pedro scenario would not
  appear obvious to anyone, including the
  utilitarian.

15
Objection 5 Counter-Intuitive

• Fifth and finally, the utilitarian is often
  accused of have to advocate conclusions that are
  clearly counterintuitive. Another case from
  Bernard Williams, that of George, can exhibit
  this critique. George is a capable nuclear
  physicist. He is contacted by the federal
  government who is asking him to come to work for
  a company that is in the business of providing
  materials for nuclear warfare to the government .
  Now George does not believe in nuclear warfare
  because of the tremendous damage it does, not
  only to the environment but indubitably to
  innocent civilians as well. George is about to
  turn down the job offer when one of his friends
  makes the following utilitarian argument. Look,
  George, if you dont take this job someone else
  will. And the probability is quite high that
  this someone else will not have all the scruples
  you have about nuclear war. Thus, it would be
  better for the overall good that you take the
  job, because if you did you might be able place
  some restraints on the practice of nuclear war.
  Given the utilitarians position, this would seem
  to be the required course of action. But,
  according to our moral intuitions, Williams
  argues, this taking the job would still be wrong
  for George.

16
Hares Response to 5th Objection

• Hare would respond to this type of criticism as
  follows. First, he would want to ask a whole
  bunch of questions about the scenario as its set
  up. He has a whole procedure through which a
  utilitarian can work whenever he or she is
  confronted with one of these fanciful scenarios
  that are supposed to show that utilitarianism is
  absurd. But if the scenario survives that
  process intact, then Hare is willing to say that,
  yes, the conclusion is counterintuitive, but our
  intuitions are only for common cases and this
  isnt a common case. Therefore, when it comes to
  a moral dilemma, that we would in the end settle
  on a counterintuitive conclusion does not count
  as a counterargument to utilitarianism.

17
Problems

• Hare disregards metaphysics altogether (serious
  metaphysical, meta-ethical problems).
• Hare fails to solve the problem of moral
  intuition it is not clear that moral intuitions
  are derivative of rule-utilitarian thinking.
• Remains utilitarian because rules are not
  imbedded foundationally.
• 2-level view is incompatible Critical level
  pulls in one direction and the constraints on the
  intuitive level pull in another.
• Iris Murdochs criticizes Hares Kantian notion
  on the basis that we have a fat, relentless ego
  which corrupts our nature at its root. Humans are
  by nature selfish. If so, how can the will be a
  creative source of good?