Kant's Categorical Imperatives

[Angrboda]

You mean it is true if it leads to greater well-being of humans, false if it does not?

Basically, yeah. If our measurement for evaluating moral statements is the well-being of sentient beings, specifically our own species in this case, then 'false' statements are those that in practice fail to produce the best possible outcome for the beings effected, relating to their well-being.

But well-being for whom? Suppose we were able to double the well-being of non-blacks at the cost of half the well-being of blacks? Would this be more moral than the current situation? Given the relative numbers, it would seem so. But we would object that this isn't fair, and therefore would not be moral. However, then you're invoking an additional principle beyond the first principle of well-being. One might argue that, in the general case, unfairness leads to less well-being, but in doing so, you would be abandoning your base principle in favor of general rules; you have started a slide away from pure consequentialist utilitarianism to rule-based utilitarianism, and are one step closer to a morality based on imperatives. And is it true that we eschew the unfair solution because of some "generality", or are we reacting to a moral principle that is equally as fundamental as well-being? I'd say the latter.

So if we try to form a deontological ethics, it slides towards consequentialism, and if we attempt to erect a pure consequentialist ethics, it slides towards deontological approaches. The same paradox can be found with virtue based ethics. We pursue virtue for its own sake because it is good, but it is good because of its consequences. This is the problem of ethics. There is no "pure" solution which works in all cases.