Compare And Contrast Utilitarianism And Kantianism

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

The ethical teachings and values of utilitarianism and Christian ethics are similar in some aspects, yet however are diverse in others. Utilitarianism is a generally teleological ethical system, where the outcome is said to justify the act. The act is considered ‘good’ if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. Christian Ethics, however, can be quite different. Many aspects of its ethics are deontological, for example, the Decalogue and Natural Law. There are other differences and indeed some similarities which will be considered throughout this essay.

     Ethics is one part of philosophy that will always be studied, and like most subjects in philosophy, will never be viewed the same by everyone. There are so many cultures that have so many different beliefs about the way a person's life should be lived out. Things like religion, poverty, and mental health all contribute to our beliefs in ethics. Some people believe that the mental state of a person or the motive for that person committing a crime should be factors when sentencing time comes. Others think that no matter the situation, a crime is a crime, and no compassion should be felt for the guilty. In the studies of philosophy these beliefs are put into two categories:

Since its initial launch in 1994, Amazon.com has now become the biggest e-commerce store in the world. Despite the slow start during its early years, Amazon has skyrocketed its growth around 2014 with its $90 billion revenue and 154,100 employees (“The Amazon Effect”). The increasing popularity of the company is backed up by its convenience and cheap factors that are present in e-commerce stores especially Amazon. The rapid and sudden grow of Amazon pushes the company to expand its factories and internal system. Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, has been known for his powerful and authoritarian style of leadership. However, as of now, Amazon has raised several controversies regarding its actions from tax avoidances, predatory pricing, and the mistreatment of workers. These controversies grabbed a lot of attention especially for tech enthusiasts and engineers. Even though these controversies are generally labeled as misconducts and bad practices, it turns out these practices are not necessarily unethical when seen from the three ethical perspectives: Kantian theory, Utilitarianism, and Ethical Egoism perspective. These three common perspectives in the study of ethics can be used to evaluate the ethicality of the internal practices and effects of Amazon.

It is clear from the case study that Alistair knows the contract is unorthodox. The problem he faces is whether he should overlook the bribe or report it to the board. The board of directors expects Alistair to tell the truth and report the bribe because of: his position as Chief Legal Officer, the board has a very strong ethics policy and they are wary of unethical activities.

Jeremy Bentham is widely regarded as the father of utilitarianism. He was born in 1748 into a family of lawyers and was himself, training to join the profession. During this process however, he became disillusioned by the state British law was in and set out to reform the system into a perfect one based on the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle,’ ‘the idea that pleasurable consequences are what qualify an action as being morally good’. Bentham observed that we are all governed by pain and pleasure; we all

Morality is a complicated matter, one which requires rationality, but is often driven by emotions. A person’s behavior is almost completely driven by emotions and often times emotions are what tell us when something might be wrong or right. Motivation also comes from emotions, so without feelings of anger, depression, frustration and the like we would hardly ever do anything in order to change things in our lives (Shafer-Landau, 2015, p. 258). Virtue ethics then is concerned with what makes a person virtuous versus vicious when it comes to making moral decisions, with emotions playing an important role. In this paper, I support Aristotle’s emphasis on emotions as a key to being virtuous, especially since emotions tell us what is important and motivate us to act (Shafer-Landau, 2015, p. 257-258).

Morality is a complex subject and ethical dilemmas yield differing opinions and theories that have manifested through time by intelligent philosophers. There were two influential philosophers’ names Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant, who formed differing theories, in an attempt to set a uniform approach to ethical dilemmas and morality. Bentham was a firm supporter of Utilitarian theory; which focuses on overall happiness and consequences of an action (EMP 122). While Kant believed in his own theory that moral rules are absolute (EMP 129). Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics have few strengths and notable weaknesses, thus proving both theories implausible when compared to

Jeremy Bentham was one of the first philosophers to present a fully developed system of utilitarianism. He thought that we, as humans, should evaluate the consequences of our actions, determine whether each action is morally right or wrong, and tally the pleasure and pain that comes as a result of our actions. Is it right for me to donate to charity? Is it right for me to cheat on my government test? These questions we ask ourselves fall under Bentham’s theory known as act-utilitarianism because it focuses on the consequences of every action we perform. Bentham argues that the “greatest happiness of the greatest number of people” (Bentham) is how we should determine right from wrong. He also believed “mankind is under the

The issues of morality are most clearly expressed through examples of different methods of analyzing a situation. The case of Holmes, an officer in charge of a sinking ship, shows the striking differences between philosopher Immanuel Kant’s beliefs and those of the Utilitarians. After Holmes’ ship sinks, there are twenty passengers in a lifeboat that is only meant to hold fourteen people. There was no time to send out a signal for help before the ship sank, so no rescue is guaranteed and the nearest land is fifteen hundred miles away. Holmes decides to force the wounded passengers and those wearing life jackets off of the lifeboat and make his way to shore without them. This action

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

This paper offers an analysis of Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham in order to argue that both of their moral theories are two different ethical principles. Nevertheless, many of their reasonings are applied in moral debates and are relevant in today’s society. Both of these philosophers brought back moral philosophy and provided different approaches on how an individual should follow moral principles. In the first part of this essay, I will analysis Kant’s moral philosophy, such as context of right and wrong, the meaning of the text, and provide evidence that these principles is applied in today’s moral debate. Then, I will discuss Bentham’s moral philosophy using the same steps of analysis.

There are four main philosophers that set the basis for different styles of ethics. The four Philosophers that made a huge impact on us all are Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. All four philosophers are very well known for their intelligence and work in the ethics community. Although all of the philosophers have the same goal of defining ethics and how we should behave in terms of the highest good for human beings they all do it in different ways in which they feel is the proper way. Throughout this paper I will be comparing each of the four main Philosophers that we learned about this semester to each other so that you can

(Panza and Potthast, 2014). They been implemented as a moral compass for humanity and applied to various situations as a way of informing the way humans think to support the more difficult decisions that are made in life. On such ethical theory, known as Utilitarianism, an ethical theory that was founded by the 18th century philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham who is currently known as the father of modern Utilitarianism. This theory is best understood as a risk-benefit analysis in which the good brought about by a certain action is weighed against the harm caused by that action. It was Bentham (1789) who quoted that Utilitarianism is about “the greatest good for the greatest number” and should be the measure of what is right and wrong. Another ethical theory that can be applied to ‘Saviour Siblings’ is Kantian Ethics. Kantian Ethics refers to a deontological ethical theory founded by scientist and philosopher Immanuel Kant. His theory differs from the utilitarian theory in a sense that it focuses more on the actual action and the morality of that action as opposed to the consequence of that action.

Utilitarianism is a limiting ethical theory that fails to grasp ethically reality. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is not ethically right in every situation. Although the majority would benefit, the minority will heavily suffer. Considering the overall consequences of our actions, the good may not always outweigh the bad, but this does mean that the good will be the ethically right thing to do. One may think they are “maximizing the overall good,” but in reality, harming many.