Ethics Wwii Prelim Answer

War Question: During the second world war the British developed the policy of mass bombing with the object of completely demolishing German cities thereby destroying public morale and hastening the end of the war. How might a Utilitarian and Kantian respond to this policy?

Kantian and utilitarian ethics are vastly different, with – in a general sense – entirely opposite beliefs on many issues. War is a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried out been groups or nations. From a philosophical standpoint, in many ways the bombing of German cities can be treated just like other major bombing events in recent time. It was accepted by those who authorised the bombing that people would be killed in the effort stop Hitler – the Nazi leader and Chancellor of Germany - from continuing his invasion across Europe. This could stop the pain and suffering millions of people were enduring and in the eyes of the British authorities, this was more important than the losses of the innocents in German cities. Kantian ethics would oppose the bombing as Kant believed innocent people should not be treated in this way (ie. Not as “a means to an end”). However, the utilitarian stance is much more complicated. The keystone of utilitarianism is the Greatest Happiness Principle (the ideology that what is right is what results in the greatest benefit for all humanity, and not a certain segment of the population). To decide whether the bombing was just one needs to look at the complexity of the issues – the circumstances – and particularly at the suffering pain endured by the innocents in the German cities. Death tolls are fairly clear cut about the extent of pain caused whereas the potential pain Hitler was to cause was less certain at the time. This is the fundamental factor in determining whether the bombings were just from a utilitarian perspective. Lord Trenchard certainly believed that the ramifications of not bombing the German cities could be much worse than the casualties caused by the bombings themselves: “…we can not only save millions of lives but we can shorten the war perhaps by years." - Lord Trenchard

Utilitarianism is divided into two categories: Act (or classical) utilitarianism and rule (or indirect) utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism looks at the act to determine what is morally right whereas with rule utilitarianism there are a set of rules which are stuck by to determine what is morally right. According to rule utilitarianism we learn from experience the kinds of actions that, in the long run, contribute most to human happiness. Rule utilitarianism is exposed to specific cases where instinctive human ethics may cause some non-utilitarian considerations to influence the way that you think. “Two-level utilitarianism” is a system of beliefs saying we can use normal, everyday moral thinking for the most part because experience has taught human beings the kinds of ways of behaving that, in general, lead to happiness. Rule utilitarianism is a much stricter methodology than two-level utilitarianism as it relies on a set out plan of how to judge what is morally right (with the “greatest happiness principle”) whereas two-level utilitarianism is much more open minded looking at specific cases and primarily using past experiences to judge what is morally right. Ideal utilitarianism is not always good to promote some of the things that any given version of the theory might consider valuable in themselves. Since classical utilitarianism says that we do pursue our own happiness anyway, it makes no senses to think the theory ought to provide a reason why each of us should pursue our own happiness. However, it is not true that we always pursue the things which ideal utilitarianism claims are intrinsically good. The idea that the best course of action taken is what brings the greatest happiness is the product of psychological hedonism: the belief that all humans seek pleasure and shun pain. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is best known as the man who founded utilitarianism, he said that all pleasures are commensurable, that they are comparable with one another in the same terms, namely, pleasure. Bentham devised the “felicific calculus” or “hedonic calculus” – a calculation of pleasures and pains. This featured: 1. Intensity 2. Duration 3. Certainty or uncertainty 4. Propinquity or remoteness 5. Fecundity, that is, the chance of a pleasure producing other pleasures and the chance of pain producing other pains.

6. Purity, that is the number of people sharing in the pleasure or pain. Example: A rich man wins a large sum of money. He has no need or desire for it so he decides he will either give it to his girlfriend (who is also rich) as a gift or to the Red Cross charity. The felicific calculus would find that giving the money to the charity would the ideal course of action as it results in the greatest happiness. John Stuart Mill argued that there is a distinction in quality between pleasures, and he thus distinguished between what he called “higher” and “lower” pleasures. Mill’s basic idea was that pleasures of the mind and spirit – philosophy, poetry, conversation and so on – were higher pleasures, whilst those of the body – eating, sleeping, drinking and the like – were lower pleasures. Utilitarianism does not seem biased to any particular religion unlike other traditional moral systems of methodology. The theory seems very much like a common sense approach and relates to the modern view that everyone should be treated equally. Its central principle is happiness to the greatest extent possible, which strongly relates to the modern view that kindness towards others is very important. Many argue that utilitarianism is absurdly demanding. To see this, consider the following example: Suppose you would like to eat an ice cream. Now consider that there are people in the world with insufficient clean drinking water, let alone luxuries such as ice cream. If you were to give your money to a charity to help provide drinking water to those without it then you would surely be creating more happiness. Utilitarianism also does not recognise the special bonds people have in families or in relationships with others. Many philosophers think that utilitarianism does not have a proper understanding of the notion of obligation. Some philosophers object to utilitarianism on the ground that it seems willing to countenance the use of individuals as a mere means to increase the happiness of the world. It seems that utilitarianism fails to take seriously our ordinary conceptions of justice because it claims that in some cases it is right to “punish” the innocent. It is flaws such as these that would likely see the utilitarian in support of the bombings. With Kantian ethics opinions are based around the Categorical Imperitive. The best known formulations of the Categorical Imperitive are the three that Kant includes in his summary of the Groundwork (79-81) and which H. J. Paton (in The Moral Law,

Hutchinson) translates as follows: 1 Act as if the maxim of your action was to become through your will a universal law of nature. The is the Formula of the Law of Nature and is saying that we should act in such a way that we can will that the maxim (or general principle) under which we act should be a general law for everyone. 2 Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. This is the Formula of the End in Itself. Kant says that it can never be right to treat people just as a means to some end – human beings are always “ends in themselves” and Kant describes human beings as “holy” because of this. 3 So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends. This is the Formula of the Kingdom of Ends. Kant envisaged rational agents acting as if they were making laws for themselves based on the use of reason and, in so far as they do this, they will become “law-making members of a kingdom of ends”. The Categorical Imperitive looks at the motives of an action to determine if it is just. In justifying the war bombing of German cities, the British government and its supporters based their case primarily on the threat Adolf Hitler posed to Britain and her allies. Britain’s motives were good, and a greater evil than Hitler would be difficult if not impossible to identify. However, the Kantian would only resort to bombing as a last resort and would probably be critical of Britain’s apparent minimal consideration of alternative options. Fundamentally, the consequences of the bombing are irrelevent with Kantian ethics as war treats some human beings as less important than others, an ideology that some

must suffer for the “greater good.” In order to treat each person equally, the Kantian purist must allow no person to suffer, or all to suffer.

Kant’s anti-naturalistic, anti-utilitarian ethical theory argued that human beings could autonomously use their reason in order to determine whether an action was morally good. By expressing the principles that underlie individual actions in terms of maxims and seeing if they could be successfully universalised to group or societal levels, Kant argued that we could work out for ourselves which actions counted as moral ones and therefore what duties we should have. If one could find contradictions in such attempts to universalise, then the action would be considered immoral and should not be performed. With his Categorical Imperative, Immanuel Kant argued that moral acts are based upon general principles that apply unconditionally. They are done out of a sense of duty, irrespective of the influence of emotion or the consequences of the act itself. Kant’s ideas are often argued to be of limited value as a guide to moral conduct. In particular his theory is criticised on account of its: 1. Simplistic model of causality, which examines action solely in terms of intention; 2. Omission of any consideration of emotion as a motivation for action; 3. Use of maxims, which it is argued are an impoverished way to express moral truths; 4. Belief that moral goodness is incompatible with the presence of contradiction; 5. Preference for the objective, a historical and unitary over the inter-subjective, contingent and pluralist, a prejudice that seems to exclude any notion of innovation and moral progress. Actions that are always wrong give us what Kant calls our perfect duties: a perfect duty is one to which there are no exceptions. Perfect duties in this sense are also known as “narrow” or “rigorous” or “necessary” duties. And it is in the case of such duties that a contradiction in conception is said to have been generated when a maxim is willed that breaches them. Kant wants the categorical imperitive to provide us also with imprefect duties. These are also known as “wide” or “meritorious” or “contingent” duties. In the case of such duties a contradiction in the will is said to be

generated when a maxim is willed that universalises them. Kant says that we should never treat a human being merely as a means. By this he means that we should not risk harm to their welfare for any cause (eg. Convicting an innocent man because the public fear strongly he is gulity). It is not easy to separate actions done from an inclination and those done from a sense of duty – it is important to recognise that it is not the action which determines goodness but the intention, motive and reason lying behind the action. The good person must act correctly, according to reason, no matter what the consequences and independent of his or her own feelings or inclinations. If a person wills to perform an act, and if this willing does not rest on a sense of duty, then it will not be a morally good action. An action which is not done from inclination at all but purely rationally, from a sense of duty, will be a morally good action. This does not mean that one has to act against one’s inclinations, but it does mean that one’s inclinations cannot determine one’s moral duty. Karl Marx (1818-83) was arguably the greatest thinker and philosopher of his time. After much writing on social problems Karl began to take much interest in communism, which was a new idea being spread. In late 1847 Karl Marx wrote the Manifesto of the Communist Party, commonly called the Communist Manfesto. It covered all aspects of communism and all communist governments were based around it. There have been numerous attempts to combine Marxism with other major schools of thought, giving rise to neo- Kantian, existentialist, psychoanalytic, structuralist, etc, interpretations of Marxism. Equity bridges the gap between Kantian and utilitarian ethics. Karl Marx would undoubtedly not have supported a utilitarian state but he would have appreciated the utilitarian stance on the subject of equity: For many, the goal of equity not only means a fair and equal distribution of income and wealth, but also generating the greatest good for the greatest number. Implicit in the redistribution of income and wealth is the utilitarianism notion that every individual's utility contributes equally to society's welfare.

To conclude, Kantian ethics would have not supported the bombings, which were

unjust not because they were not initiated with the right intentions – those of duty to help others – rather because innocent people were being punished unfairly (although Kant would have supported the war completely if innocents were not suffering and only those who caused suffering themselves). It is possible that a utilitarian could go either way on this issue. It is most likely that the utilitarian would have supported the bombings at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight the bombings had little effect on Hitler’s power and caused more deaths than they could have been worth (and so the utilitarian would not have supported them). The strategic bombing of targets such as railway lines, bridges, roads etc. was much most significant in destroying Germany’s ability to produce industrial/war goods and consequent Nazi downfall.