Let’s analyse another scenario. There is a family, who doesn’t have money to buy food for themselves. They haven’t eaten in days and they’re losing their health due to starvation. Thus, in order to protect their health and life, a member of the family decides to steal some money to get food for all of them. Now what would Kant say about this scenario? Was his act morally just? The family member who stole would probably be able to justify his action. However, if Kant’s law of universalization is applied to this situation, the person would consider what it would be like if everyone in the world stole. The whole idea of people owning something would not be present, because everyone would be stealing each other’s things. So, according to Kant, …show more content…
Bentham objection could be summed up in the following lines, Bentham’s objection could be summed up in the following lines,
“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it. (Ch. 1)
Bentham’s theory remains teleological, using the outcome of an action to determine whether it is good or bad. Hence a simple comment on this would be since the consequence of the action produced a greater good, so it’s morally good. But let’s go deep inside Bentham’s objection and carefully analyze the scenario according to a utilitarian perspective. The morality of an action, for a utilitarian, is solely based on its consequence. The action resulted in the greater happiness and pleasure of the whole family as compared to the pain of only one person who got robbed so it’s morally