Picking up utilitarianism again.Utilitarianism has some similar problems to Hedonism and Epicureanism. Utilitarians of any stripe have a common root problem. The Goodness of any act can be judged on the basis of its effects, and those effects are related to physical states. This means, in effect, that the ends justify the means.
(As an aside, this professor reminds me a lot of Tom McDonald. Not in perspective, but in mannerism.)
Methodological utilitarianism has picked up natural rights as an answer to the ends-justify-the-means criticism. Since methodological utilitarianism doesn’t require the greatest good over time be the good, only that acting in such a way generally furthers the good. Natural rights work well for this purpose, if you can agree on a good set of natural rights. Unfortunately, these rights cannot themselves be derived from Utilitarianism itself.
Historically, natural rights frameworks have been provided by common religious ground. An argument can be made that this is breaking down, and thus the natural law framework is or will begin to break down and mutate.
Natural rights viewpoints can lead one to Natural Law as an ethical framework. Natural Law holds that the good is to fulfill one’s nature. People have an obligation to fulfill their natures, and a right to that which is needed to fulfill that obligation.
Immanuel Kant proposed a theory now called the Categorical Imperative. This was in many ways a response to Utilitarianism. Kant proposed that by thinking on an act, the thinker could determine whether something was good or not, divorced of rationalization. Kant believed you good discover these “intrinsic goods” through natural reason. If an act, without regard to any rationalizing or mitigating factor, is desirable, it is an intrinsic good, and is always good regardless of seemingly negative or undesirable circumstances.
In the Categorical Imperatives, an act or thing is good or not, regardless of its effect, without exception. True moral behavior consists of doing the right thing regardless of its effect. In fact, doing an act for the sake of its effects destroys its moral value. Saving a person’s life is Good. Saving a person’s life because you like him is not good. For Kant, the Good is duty to the categorical imperative, under all conditions.
Kant did not believe that these intrinsic goods were manufactured or cultural artifacts. Telling the truth would still be good even if your culture claimed lying was good.
Kantian epistemology was descended from DeCartes. DeCartes is considered by many the beginning of modern philosophy; he was proceeded by a group of skeptics. DeCartes propounded a policy of methodic doubt in response to the skeptics. He settled on “Cogito Ergo Sum”, as the one undoubtable truth. I Think, Therefore I Am. He concluded that without the ability to think, one could not doubt. Therefore, if one can doubt the truth of anything, that is proof of thought. Further, if there is thought, there must be a thinker. The existence of doubt is proof of the existence of self. Everything else, including physical and natural laws, could then be reasoned from this base. DeCartes is considered the first Rationalist.
Cartesian thought had real problems. It isn’t actually possible to reason out all physical law from “Cogito Ergo Sum”, or at least it’s prohibitively difficult. DeCartes is followed by