CHAPTER 5

The Objectivist Approach

Learning Objectives At the end of this chapter, the learners are expected to:
1. Explain objectivism;
2. Give and discuss the various forms of objectivism;
3. Justify the principles of objectivism as probable tool in making moral judgment; and
4. Give examples of objective rules and regulations in their community and school.
The objectivists or the moral realist, claim that ethical truths are fixed, permanent,
specific, objective or universal. They exist whether or not we accept them. People like
the English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679 A.D.), the German
philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 A.D.), the famous German mathematician and
logician Gottlob Frege (1848-1925 A.D.) and the Russian-American novelist and
philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982 A.D.) to name a few, claim that there are things that
exist independently outside the human mind. These things are unchanging, precise and
limited.
Most Christian philosophers embrace this perspective literally, like the great
medieval French philosopher and theologian Peter Abelard (1079-1142 A.D.), the
angelic doctor of Catholic Church and philosopher Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D.), a
Swiss Protestant theologian Karl Bart (1886-1968 A.D.), the German pastor and
theologian Dietrich Bonheoffer (1906 -1945 A.D.), a Danish existential philosopher
Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855 A.D.) and the famous Pope John Paul II or Karol Wojtyla
(19202005 A.D.). They believe that a Supreme being exist even though they don’t have
tangible proofs of its existence. Besides, and this is surprising, this permanent Being or
God, provides a permanent moral code which is “unbreakable and unchanged.” These
laws exist even before they think of it, they call it “divine-command theory.” Example of
which is the Ten Commandments, such as, “thou shall not kill.” “thou shall not steal” or
“honor the Sabbath day" and so on and so forth. Let us say a person is in a war, the
enemy is pointing a gun at him or her, and the enemy is ready to shoot him or her, what
will he or she say? "Tam a Christian, I follow the moral code 'thou shall not kill don't
shoot me or you can instead shoot me... I can't kill you"... this is ridiculous. All people
are ask to take care of themselves and defend it if possible, and if he or she dies in the
process, so be it.
Sonte Familiar Forms of Objectivism
1. Kant's on "Universal Law" and Deontological Approach
Indeed, everybody wishes to be the ‘good’ guy and all are totally exhausted
‘cracking’ the ‘riddle.’ And Immanuel Kant offers a solution to the riddle. Kant was a very
strange and extraordinary man. He lives by schedule in the obscure town in Germany of
Konigsberg. He walks every morning and he never miss a single day walking. His
servants always carry with him an umbrella in case it all rain. He is not marred but loves
the company of women. His intellectual consciousness on reality infects and affects
philosophy until now.
He things that Christian ethics is superb, however, it does come from faith and
not from reason. How can rational being explain a ‘moral code’ coming from the top of a
mountain and is carried by Moses. Something, which is unacceptable and unthinkable
for some philosophers, like the famous 19 th century German philosopher and linguist
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900 A.D.) So, Kant shows to the people how moral rules
can be explain through the use of reason.
Kant admits that people need to be good. And to be good is to be faithful with
their duties. So, Kant claims that people need to be faithful with their duties. So he
begins by evaluating the people’s intentions cautiously and suspiciously. He finds out
that goodness is hard to attain, because duties are often opposed to what a person
intends to do. For example, a person knows he or she will clean the house, but that
person will miss playing computer games. Kant as a strict man will probably say, no to
computer games you clean the house. But how the person will know that his or her duty
is to clean the house first and not to play computer game? Where do they come from?
The response of Kant is ‘know what is categorical imperative’. In simple terms, it only
means "universal law" or a law that is absolutely necessary.
Kant said that using our reason alone we can find out moral codes. He claims
that reason is universal therefore the rules we can find from reason is universal too.
Universality means, the same for everyone, everywhere and in all context or cultural
milieu. It is fixed and unchanging, and thus, always right. Nobody can water them down
or make alibis to deny its existence. But how will the person make them work?
Kant says, a person can act only on those universal rules, he calls the maxims.
That the person is prepared to make these laws into universal or absolutely necessary.
Following the maxims is like following the 'Ten Commandment' but this time the person
is using his or her reason rather than faith alone.
 Kant says, what if somebody states "I think people may tell lies if they want to. If
this is correct, then everybody will start telling lies, and nobody will know what truth is."
The meaning of language will blow up and nobody will know the difference between
truth and lying. That person has destroyed some vital moral concepts and even the
meaning of language itself.
So, how can the person know if the rule is universal? According to Kant, the
person only need to ask this query, "what would happen if everyone..." for Kant this is
the bedrock of all moral rules. And because they are derived from reason, these rules
are categorical imperative and not non-compulsory. Kant's 'categorical imperative' is
similar to Moses' 10 Commandments - they are non-negotiable.
What if the person lies or steal all the time, what will happen? Kant will just say
that people have no right to own properties and there will be trouble with the concept of
"truth." So, lying and stealing are irrational and immoral. Thus, they can't be considered
as "categorical imperative.'
But there is another trouble here, Kant's type of ethics is derived from reason but
being ethical will always be a struggle. Since to be ethical is usually going against your
likes. Kant insists that our personal desires are secondary to our moral duty. For
example, the person likes to play games from his or her computer, but the person needs
to clean the house. So what will the person do? For Kant it is to clean the house. In a
sense, a moral person or a good guy for Kant is someone who ignores his or her
naughty desires. Morality for Kant is based on reason objective, completely outside of
our wants and desires. Besides, it is duty-based.
In fact, Kant's ethical principle is an action-based ethics which is deontological
and based on reason alone/The person is considered ethical or moral if his or her
actions obey the rules or conform to his or her duties.
The word deontology comes from the Geek word ‘deon’ or duty. Deontology is a
moral principle that uses rules to determine right action from wrong action. Deontology
is often associated with religious groups and in philosophy, to Immanuel Kant, with his
‘categorical imperative’. Deontology is a very simple moral principle to apply in our lives.
We just follow the rules and do our duties. This approach is fitting for people who just
like to follow the laws without question. The following advantages of deontology;
1. It emphasizes the worth of every human person. In fact, Kant says that people must
be treated not as 'means' but as 'ends.' We don't use human person as 'objects' or
'things' or even as our possession to be utilized or for our purpose or goal.
2. It tells that some behaviors are wrong. There are certain human behaviors that are
unacceptable for everyone everywhere, like, killing a person. 3. It provides sureness
that something is wrong. For example, killing a person unintentionally will still bother the
conscience of the perpetrator. That the doer of the action will still feel his or her action is
wrong.
4. It deals with the intentions or motives of a person not the consequence.
However there are some disadvantages of this moral guide, such as;
1. It sets a very rigid and absolute rules, it does not have a home for flexibility.
2. It is difficult to reconcile conflicting duties or rules.
3. It is very cruel to action; action can be judge only as good or bad.
The Christian philosophers, on the other hand, follows the “Divine-Command
theory,” which states that a person is ethical or moral if he or she follows the commands
of God, if not he or she is considered unethical or a bad guy. Christians call this
behaviors as ‘unchristian acts’ and the doers of the actions are called dissenters or
heretics.
2. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism
If you are tired of following rules and regulations as a ‘good guy’ then you can try
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill’s moral philosophy known as ‘Utilitarianism.’ It
says that ‘intention’ is not important only ‘consequences.’ This ethical principle is far
different from Kant’s Categorical imperative.’
This moral principle utilizes as a tool the ‘teleological’ approach but still it is an
‘action-based’ ethics, however, instead of conforming to rules or duties, “human action”
conforms to its goal or end or consequence or purpose. The word is derived from the
Greek word “telos,” which means “end, purpose, goal or consequence.”
This moral principle is popularized by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), a lawyer by
profession and an Englishman. He wishes that if he dies his body shall be mummified,
and you can still see it in glass case in University College London. HeHH
He criticizes most philosophies and call them 'non-sense.' He is an avid fan of
democracy (i.e. all political powers reside in the people) however he is also an
authoritarian (i.e. a person who decides what goals are to be achieved). In fact, he
pioneered a prison known as "Panopticon" where all the prisoners can be seen by
guards all the time.
His moral principle is based on the concept of "pain and pleasure" an idea which
is first realized by David Hume (Driver, 2004; Darwall, 1995). He claims that a law that
creates 'more pleasure and less pain' is a 'good' law. And a law that creates 'more pain
and less pleasure' is a 'bad' law. In conjunction to 'pain and pleasure' concept of
morality, he invented a system of "happiness Sum."
 "Happiness Sum" is like discerning the positive and negative effects of a
particular issue. Assigning points to both the experience of pain and pleasure is vital.
Let us take this example:
I. First assign points to both the experience of "pain and pleasure."
a) I means a small touch of pleasure or pain,
b) 20 means extreme agony or happiness
II. Then think of an issue. Let say for instance, it is final examination next week. So what
will be the goal? Study well to:
a) Pass all the tests;
b) Get good grades; and
c) Be admired by parents, relatives and girlfriend.
III. Then think, what will be the effects of these actions?
a) Maybe, reduce playing time for computer games;
b) Reduce the chance to play basketball with friends; and
c) Lost the chance to see my girlfriend.
IV. Then give points to the possible effects of the actions:

Pleasure Points Pain Points

Pass all the tests 20 Reduce Playing time 10
for Computer games
Get good grades 20 Reduce the chances 10
to play basketball
with friends
Admire by parents, 20 Lost the chance to be 15
relatives and with my girlfriend
girlfriend
total 60 40
Table 1: Happiness Sum chart
From table 1, it shows that the points of ‘pleasure’ is greater than ‘pain’. So,
study well. However, Bentham’s method is designed for government institution only and
not for private individuals. But you can try to make one for self.
Utilitarianism is very democratic. It gives surely that most people will always get
what they want. Most people want a leader that is autocratic and very strict they will get
it, as long as the majority of the people will be happy.
 Another philosopher who follows the footsteps of Bentham is John Stuart Mill
(1806-1873). He is a child prodigy, very bright, and is forced to excel academically to
the utmost degree, until he gets a nervous breakdown.
Mill's utilitarian is similar to Bentham except that he does not use the term
pleasure, instead he uses the term 'happiness. His utilitarian style is designed for all
unlike Bentham's method, which is designed for government's functions and projects.
Mill's utilitarian has one goal, to make sure that most people experience
happiness than misery. There are no strict rules to follow, every human person's action
is measured separately. Thus, anybody can steal, lie or kill someone, as long as it
produces happiness. Besides, intention does not matter in this type of moral principle,
only the consequences of the actions. Thus, everybody doesn't need the "Ten
Commandments."
There are two ways to be a ‘good guy’ in utilitarianism, namely, if one follows the
method of ‘act-utilitarianism.’ Which is following precisely the definition of utilitarianism,
which says that a person’s actions must benefit most of the people, in spite of personal
feelings or the restrictions in society such as the rules and regulations. So, killing a
person is good only if the doer of the action will be happy. The other way is the “rule-
utilitarianism” which states that the actions of the person benefit most of the people
fairly and justly. Thus giving values to justice and charity simultaneously. For example, a
person can kill somebody, like a touch criminal, if that is the only way to liberate the
people in the city from sure death.
Do you think the president of the Philippines, Mayor Rodrigo Roa Duterte is an
example of a rule-utilitarian?
Both ways have the problems, in utilitarianism, the person predicts about what
will be the result of his or her actions. Since predictions are unsure to happen, so his or
her action may appear later as a lie, especially if the action does not benefit the
majority. A good example was when United States invaded Iraq in 1990 to destroy
Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction for the good of all, unfortunately there was none…
so it appeared that United States was just lying.
Next, in this principle, the person who makes decision must compare the
possible various results against each other. What if some results are visible like wealth
or food, and other are not visible like joy or happiness. Since their qualities differ so
much, hence it is difficult to compare them. In the case of the US invasion of Iraq, to
eradicate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and to see Iraqis are happy, are two
different qualities that are hard to compare, unfortunately both are not seen, until now.
Besides, in act-utilitarianism, the person who makes decision is concerned with
attaining the maximum good but not about justice or charity. Hence, it does not matter if
one person is hurt as long as most people are happy. So, it does not matter if 100,000
Iraqis will die including some innocent citizens, as long as millions of Iraqi survives.
Another thing, what happens if the situation changes, so the person who is not
benefitted will now gain the benefit, and the majority will not. If Saddam Hussein is not
captured, so he will be the only Iraqi who is happy, the rest of the Iraqis are miserable.
Lastly, in utilitarianism, there is always the possibility of conflicting rules. For
example, as a teacher he or she is always expected to come to class on time. But what
is really his or her purpose of coming to school? Is it because of salary? Does he or she
like to be an exemplar to the students? Or because he or she is just following the rule?
In the case of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, what really is its goal? Is it to remove Saddam,?
Is it to liberate the Iraqis from a dictator? Is it because of the weapons of mass
destruction? Or maybe is it because of the vested interest of the Americans?
Summary
Almost all of us break the law every day, we lie to our parents, friends, teachers
or classmates, but we need it, because, if there is no law everything in society will be
chaotic.
Kant's "categorical imperative "may seem stiff or rigid, however it gives us a clear
position on where we are. Kant thinks that if a person breaks a rule, his or her being
moral person diminishes. Nonetheless, if we assess history, we notice that there are
bad guys who do terrible things to good and innocent people, if we have clear moral
rules, at least we can condemn the 'bad guys' or persuade them to stop
Kant stresses, that morality has nothing to do with human wants or desires, It is
something objective. Morality has to be consistent. We can't say I will not lie today, but
tomorrow I will lie. Kant says, obey the rules, do your duties and check your actions
then you are a good guy, a moral person, Kant insisted that intentions matter most in
ethics not consequences. And obeying strict rules is one way of being a good person. If
you think you need moral rules and you promise to live by them, then maybe moral
philosophy of Immanuel Kant is for you, especially if you think that following rules is
good for you. But it is not always that simple or easy,