Utilitarianism in the context of the Categorical Imperative

After reading and discussing Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Mill’s Utilitarianism, a fusion of the two philosophies seems to be the idea closest to what I believe is justice. As stated in class, we are all in some respects Utilitarian. In the trolley example, all of us agreed that we would, or at least should, throw the switch. Seeing others suffer is painful to the majority of humans, and we would agree with the greatest happiness principle. Yet in order to reach this principle, we must, at times, treat others as means. This would go against what most of us think of as justice, for it violates the Categorical Imperative. We must accept this violation to live and govern justly, but we must also keep the Categorical Imperative in mind when making our decisions.

In execution we must adhere to Utilitarianism, but in principle we must strive to govern our actions by the Categorical Imperative. To be just we should limit our use of Utilitarianism through checks with the Categorical Imperative. A good example of this type of action or governing is the use of war. It can be justifiably used as a means to protect a great number of people through the sacrifice of a few. The few are treated as means, so it does violate the Categorical Imperative A country with a volunteer army obviously has the easiest job justifying the use of war, but with the incorporation of a draft makes the use of war more questionable.

Another example of justice as a mix between Kant and Mill’s philosophies is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If viewed directly with the Categorical Imperative in mind, then this action cannot be seen as just. Leveling cities with thousands of civilians in order to win a war cannot be seen as a universal law, and it also treats humans as means rather than ends. The decision was a very Utilitarian, for it was made in order to save lives of Americans and Japanese. There is not much of an argument against the fact that it saved lives, for it was a mere estimate that 1-2 million American soldiers would die upon invasion, which does not even account for the numbers of Japanese who would perish.

The justice of this decision depends on how much one holds the Categorical Imperative to be a governing principle. The action in itself cannot be said to be just, for it is not a universal law and it uses humans as a means. Yet, there is no way to predict the future. One can only judge what is right and wrong on the basis of a rational account, and there was reason to believe that this action would end the war a bring about less casualties. This decision adhered to the greatest happiness principle but violated the Categorical Imperative.