Process of Philosophy

In my admittedly short life I have found that I am and always was a

strong utilitarian. Not a terribly exiting revelation, but it is a philosophy I live
my life by. In accordance with the process of philosophic inquiry, the first
step to arriving at a conclusion are asking questions. For me this step was
preceded by my rather cynical world view. You simply cant make everyone
happy. No matter how hard you try, someone will always resent the way you
go about things. Therefore the only thing left to do in trying to lead a good
life is to do the best you can and do the most good possible. This leads to
questions such as where can I focus my efforts to guarantee the greatest
payout? Following this question I would gather information as to be able to
understand what is the moral choice (at least for me). Then reasoning follows
this stage, in essence this is simple math of weighing pros and cons. Forming
a conclusion merely refers to creating a plan of action. It is only when we
arrive at defending the conclusion does conflict arise. Because the morality
of utilitarianism is determined by the consequences of the action, defending
your choice is the moment of truth so to speak.
As per the Catholic Church, utilitarianism encourages moral relativism
and oftentimes injustice. For the church the greater good refers to the
happiness of all not just a simple majority. But as we established, pleasing
everyone is in practice impossible. Furthermore utilitarianism can be abused
with the stoicism of the church cannot. To give an example, withholding
classroom supplies from classmates because you have a test is just as much
an example of a utilitarian approach as being forced to kill one man to save
two. Unfortunately, life sometimes necessitates sacrifice. Simple black and
white decisions are a thing of fantasy (i.e you either keep your morality or
you dont). Not being able to act in a moral dilemma due to being restricted
by personal values is a sign of cowardice to me. Knowing that I could have
acted to make the best of a bad situation but didnt is a failure to me. If I
possessed the ability to influence a positive outcome but didnt act I would
consider it a personal defeat. This is where I differ from Kantian ethics.
Philosophies such as those of Kant focus on removing the self from the
equation. Using the example of the guerilla fighters taking a village hostage
and threatening to execute all hostage unless you kill one, Kant would assert
you are not guilty if you choose to let the hostages die. You did not cause or
contribute to the problem ergo you are innocent. It seems almost like
cheating to subscribe to this ideology. It calls to mind the egocentrism of
children that cover their eyes and pretend the world has disappeared. By
even being present you have become directly involved in the matter and the
responsibility of the hostage switches to you and so therefore you must do

anything necessary to ensure the best outcome (which is any hostages

surviving)

Quite naturally my point of view would be supported by the founders of

utilitarianism Bentham and Mill. As creators of the idea it is only natural they
would defend it. More interesting would be the opposition led primarily by
Kant. The idea of the categorical imperative is admirable. There are indeed
things that should be considered wrong in all (most) circumstances).
However Kants theories are rather nave in my view. In a perfect world his
philosophy would undoubtedly be the one I would have subscribed too.
Unfortunately the world is not as cut and dry as he would have liked it to
have been. Suffering takes place whether you are there to observe it or not.
You simply cant stop it by standing back. Problems dont fix themselves. A
personal touch is needed to fix things and whether the approach is heavy
handed or not should not be an issue. The only question that matters is
whether the actions pays of in the long term and whether I did the best I
could to satisfy the most people. If so then I can rest easy knowing I acted
morally.