Evaluation of Universal Morality with Comparison of Immanuel Kant, Jeremy

Bentham and Friedrich Nietzsche

Ali Alp STN
21200685
HUM112-6

Morality is a branch of philosophy which deals with the concepts to distinguish the
good from bad. Universal morality is a meta-ethical (or superior ethical) situation since it
deals with all people without concerning the class, sexuality, race, culture or religion; hence it
proposes a standard morality can be applied in all possible situations. Because of its
controversial nature in determining the most virtuous and universal morality, many
philosophers from Ancient Greek to our present have expressed their own view and also
divided into groups for responding whether there is a universal morality. Immanuel Kant is
one of the pioneers in axiology of ethics, and his idea for determining the good and right in
individual and social context is that there is a universal morality. In contrast, Jeremy Bentham
formed consequentialism and utilitarianism; therefore, he does not apply that there can be a
universal morality. Similar to Benthams idea, Friedrich Nietzsche defines two types for
morality and declines there can be a formal universal morality. Comparing these philosophers
ideas, the point that I would like to figure out that is there a universal morality and if there is
not; is individual morality always beneficial to the society and improvement of humanity.
Before our discussion, let me provide a particular situation that can be considered as
unusual; then, the universality of morals can be figured out if Kants, Benthams or
Nietzsches view of morality gives the best solution: Consider yourself a German civilian in
World War II and a Jewish family came to your door for begging a place to hide from cruelty
of Nazis. The first question is that would you hide them in your house and let yourself into a
1

risky position? Suppose that you accepted them into your place; a Nazi guardsmen who is
looking for this Jewish family came to your door and asked if you had seen; in addition,
indicated that these family has a crucial detrimental information for the Nazi army and
German society. Would you reveal Jewish family to Nazis or still hide them? As a German
civilian, you should think critically before making a response as being Kant, Bentham or
Nietzsche for the best moral act.
Kants view for morality is that there is a universal morality and it has to serve to
universal laws of nature. Kant forms and analyzes the reason of will. This concept is
important for him because he claims that Rational beings alone have the faculty of action
according to the conception of laws according to principles, that is, have a will. Since the
deduction of actions from principles requires reason. in his essay Fundamental Principles of
the Metaphysics of Morals. According to that idea and his third proposition, the moral act
should not done from duty or from a selfish view. The act should be done by the will for duty
which is necessity of acting from respect for the law. The interesting about it, the
consequences are out of our vision and the results will eventually beneficial because the
natures order will lead a positive consequence. Considering the Nazi situation, the respond
for the first question is important for Kants view of will. If you let them the Jewish family to
hide because you feel sorry for them and cannot resist their begging; it makes you immoral.
However, if your reason for taking them inside and hiding in your house is to be good and
save their life for improvement of human life; then, you act according to universal laws of
nature and your will is moral. Another important concept about Kants morality is welfare of
individuals. He indicates that one who is in prosperity could take out of others concern of
himself; although, in practice it will lead cheating and betraying of rights of men or otherwise
violating them. Such a will is impossible to the principle of universal validity of law of nature;
therefore, one should consider others right because it is the good that sprung from nature. In
2

summary, Kants view for morality is universal and its maxim is from law of nature; when this
morality is performed, without regarding its consequences, it will be beneficial for individual
and the society in all situations.
Benthams view is opposing to Kants idea for universal morality. Bentham suggests
that our morality should be based on the principle of utility since it should provide the
happiness of the society regardless of the morality of the act. According to Bentham, Nature
has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.
therefore all the present work should done for happiness. By the principle of utility which
approves or disapproves (good or bad) of every action appears to have to augment or diminish
the benefit of the party; if the society of general is in the interest, then the benefit of the
general society or if the specific individual is in interest than the happiness of this person is
important. According to these view of Bentham; the man can resist the pain and by the good
of society that he lives, he will provide the happiness. What makes society happy, makes the
individual happy; thus, it is moral action. In addition, every man has own sentiment for the
standard of right; therefore, it can be identified that Bentham has no universal view for
morality. Everyman or community can use own moral right under the strict circumstances that
if they applied in proper conditions for providing utility himself or for the community.
Returning back to our example, the second question will be answered different according to
Kant and Bentham. If Nazis ask for you that if you hide Jewish family that has detrimental
information; you should not betray the Jewish family since Nazis will put them to death and it
is against the law of nature; therefore, you will obey the view of Kant. In contrast, in the
Benthams morality, betraying the Jewish family is a moral act because they have detrimental
information for German society and your action will be also appreciated by providing the
happiness of society eventually. One important criticism should be done here because the
happiness only belongs to particular society. The universal morality looks for a culture,
3

society independent ethical laws; therefore, Benthams morality only increases one groups
happiness while decreases others. His non-universal morality view contradicts itself since it
gives pain to others while providing pleasure on his own.
These two philosopher has two contrast ideas and I can also claim that an evolution of
universal morality is been done from Kant to Bentham. In Nietzsche who wrote his essays
about one century after Kant and Bentham has different idea about universality of morality as
expected. According to Nietzsche, there is two social class which are master and slave;
therefore, there are two kinds of morality: master morality and slave morality. Slave morality
based on utility; as Bentham proposed, what is good is that the beneficial for the community
but it is a re-sentiment morality which is composed by the masters values. However, he is an
individualist; thus, master morality is the morality of strong willed. The proper to the human
nature requires to act against the morality; thus, it is natural to be cruel, egoist and determined
to the extreme level of grad in society. He indicates that the two opposing values good and
bad, good and evil have been engaged in a fearful struggle on earth for thousands of years;
and though the latter value has certainly been on top for a long time, there are still places
where the struggle is as yet undecided. In these words, he claims that moral values have been
argumentative and he also suggest that these moral values should refused so the man can be
advance in highest points since it is the suitable for him. It can be seen inconclusive in the
Nazi guardsman and Jewish family example according to Nietzsche; because, the German
civilian would be in mind that no advantage will be hold by hiding the Jewish family; hence,
would refuse them. Examining the Nietzsches morality in universal values, there is no point
that makes it universal. Nietzsches morality is against morality and only for individualism.
In comparing and analyzing Kants, Benthams and Nietzsches morality for
universality; Kant is the only one that proposes a global ethical values. Benthams morality
seem more common since it is for society but for particular society that an individual man
4

lives in itself. Moreover, it provides pleasure from other communities while giving them pain;
therefore, it is not universal for all communities and individuals. Nietzsches morality is far
from being socialist and his idea is for individualism by rejecting moral values and acting as
man as in the nature which is immoral itself. Evaluating these ideas, I can see an evolution in
morality from universalism to individualism. In contrast, I cannot propose one of these
morality ideas is the most suitable one. For the only suitable morality that is Kants morality;
it is always difficult to determine the nature state of man; thus, the nature of laws are also
ambiguous. Bentham proposes nature of man is to repel pain by taking the pleasure and
Nietzsche claims that nature of man if cruel, egoist and determined. If these laws of nature are
applied to Kants morality, it will contradict what he presents in his idea. After analyzing these
three ideas I can conclude in this way: Mans first intention should be to act like Kants
morality because it is for alls good, in hard situations, he should know it is still moral to act
against morality like Bentham proposed; nevertheless, he should be aware of his nature that
against nature and morality as Nietzsche proposed and should not prevent to evolve himself in
this manner because an universal and advanced morality can only achieved in this manner.