Why Couldnt Kant Be A Utilitarian? Essay -- Philosophy Philosophical

Why Couldnt Kant Be A useful?ABSTRACT In his seek Could Kant be in possession of Been a Utilitarian?, R. M. Hare tries to show that Kants clean-living hypothesis contains utilitarian elements and it can be properly asked if Kant could keep up been a utilitarian, though in fact he was not. I return seriously Hares contest to the standard captivate because I find his reading on the completely sensitive enough to triad to a uniform exposition of Kants honorable philosophy. Still, I hardly call back that it is necessarily concluded from Hares reading that Kant could have been a utilitarian. In this paper, I will first show that Hares interpretation of treating a person as an end as treating a persons ends as our profess is reasonable, and so is his reading of willing our maxim as a universal law and duties to oneself, which is ground on that interpretation. Then I will argue that Kant couldnt be a utilitarian despite the manifestly utilitarian elements in his theory because care about others ends (of which happiness is the bosom) is a duty. This is so, in Kants view, not because happiness is precious in itself, except because it is the sum of those ends set freely by individually rational human beingness who is valuable in itself, that is, an end in itself. In his essay Could Kant Have Been A Utilitarian?, (1) R.M. Hare, analyzing Kants textbook, tries to show that Kants moral theory contains utilitarian elements and it can be properly asked whether Kant could have been a utilitarian though he was in fact not. I take his challenge to the standard view seriously not because it is made by the celebrated moral philosopher but because I find Hares reading of Kants text on the whole reasonable enough to lead to a consistent interpretation of Kants moral philo... ... fuer Philosophie), 1991.(3) T. Terada, op.cit. J. Murphy, Kant The doctrine of Right, MacMillan, 1970.(4) H.J. Paton, The Categorical Imperative, Pennsylvania U.P., 1971.(5) T. T erada, Universal Principle of Right as the coercive Principle of Kants working Philosophy, in Proceedings of the eighth International Kant Congress, 1995.(6) T. Terada, Kanto ni okeru Jiko ni taisuru Gimu no Mondai (The Problem of Duties to Oneself in Kant), Tetsugaku (The Philosophy) 46, 1995 T. Nitta,Fuhenkakanosei to Sogo-shutaisei (Universal-izability and Intersubjectivity), in Aichi Kenritsu Daigaku ronshu 35, 1986.(7) T. Terada, Universal Principle of Right as the Supreme Principle of Kants Practical Philosophy P. Guyer, Kants morals of Law and Morality of liberty, in Dancy (ed.), op.cit.(8) W.K. Frankena, Ethics, Prentice-Hall, 1973. Why Couldnt Kant Be A Utilitarian? Essay -- Philosophy Philosophical Why Couldnt Kant Be A Utilitarian?ABSTRACT In his essay Could Kant Have Been a Utilitarian?, R. M. Hare tries to show that Kants moral theory contains utilitarian elements and it can be properly asked if Kant could have been a utilitarian, though in fact he w as not. I take seriously Hares challenge to the standard view because I find his reading on the whole reasonable enough to lead to a consistent interpretation of Kants moral philosophy. Still, I hardly believe that it is necessarily concluded from Hares reading that Kant could have been a utilitarian. In this paper, I will first show that Hares interpretation of treating a person as an end as treating a persons ends as our own is reasonable, and so is his reading of willing our maxim as a universal law and duties to oneself, which is based on that interpretation. Then I will argue that Kant couldnt be a utilitarian despite the apparently utilitarian elements in his theory because caring about others ends (of which happiness is the sum) is a duty. This is so, in Kants view, not because happiness is valuable in itself, but because it is the sum of those ends set freely by each rational human being who is valuable in itself, that is, an end in itself. In his essay Could Kant Have Been A Utilitarian?, (1) R.M. Hare, analyzing Kants text, tries to show that Kants moral theory contains utilitarian elements and it can be properly asked whether Kant could have been a utilitarian though he was in fact not. I take his challenge to the standard view seriously not because it is made by the celebrated moral philosopher but because I find Hares reading of Kants text on the whole reasonable enough to lead to a consistent interpretation of Kants moral philo... ... fuer Philosophie), 1991.(3) T. Terada, op.cit. J. Murphy, Kant The Philosophy of Right, MacMillan, 1970.(4) H.J. Paton, The Categorical Imperative, Pennsylvania U.P., 1971.(5) T. Terada, Universal Principle of Right as the Supreme Principle of Kants Practical Philosophy, in Proceedings of the 8th International Kant Congress, 1995.(6) T. Terada, Kanto ni okeru Jiko ni taisuru Gimu no Mondai (The Problem of Duties to Oneself in Kant), Tetsugaku (The Philosophy) 46, 1995 T. Nitta,Fuhenkakanosei to Sogo-shutaisei (Univ ersal-izability and Intersubjectivity), in Aichi Kenritsu Daigaku ronshu 35, 1986.(7) T. Terada, Universal Principle of Right as the Supreme Principle of Kants Practical Philosophy P. Guyer, Kants Morality of Law and Morality of Freedom, in Dancy (ed.), op.cit.(8) W.K. Frankena, Ethics, Prentice-Hall, 1973.