Essay on Comparing and Contrasting Utilitarianism and Kantianism

Utilitarianism considers the pleasure and pain of every individual affected by an action. It also considers everyone to be equal and does not permit an individual to put their interests or relationships first. After this it attempts to provide an objective, quantitative method for making moral decisions. Utilitarianism is not able to assign quantitative measures to all pleasures and pains, and does not address the issue of some pleasures and pains that cannot or should not be measured-such as human life or human suffering.

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 differences in moral decision making between Thomas Aquinas, David Hume and Immanuel Kant can significantly impact our actions when we use them as the bases for our decisions making. Aquinas provides reasoning that is based on the idea that if a law contrary to natural law should not be obeyed. Hume, a believer in making moral decisions based on our feelings, provides a system that allows us to make moral decisions with the ends that justify the means. Unlike Aquinas and Hume, Kant without doubt believes that law should be obeyed without question or the end results in mind. Since all three offer different approaches to ethical decision make, the end results will dramatically vary.

     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:

In this essay I have chosen to compare two opposing theories, Immanuel Kant 's absolutist deontological ethics and Joseph Fletchers relativist situation ethics. The deontological ethics focuses on actions made according to duty and the categorical imperative - which shows how acts are intrinsically good or bad. The situation ethics state that no act is intrinsically good or bad, and that actions should b made according to love. From this perspective it looks as thought Kant 's views were less personal than Fletcher 's, although in actuality both focus on the best outcome for humans.

he question about whether utilitarianism or Kantianism gives a more accurate understanding for our moral obligations is brought up there are two different arguments. One argument by Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mills and Andrew Gustafson is in favor of utilitarianism and the other one is by Immanuel Kant and Norman E. Bowie, which is in favor of Kantianism. With more information and knowledge on the two ethical theories, you will realize that Kantianism gives a more accurate understanding for our moral obligations.

“The Night in Question” by Tobias Wolff and “Should the Numbers Count” by John Taurek are both critical analyses that argue against the moral principles of utilitarianism. This theory is used to make decisions by calculating the consequences of an action in terms of how much pain and pleasure it causes the world. Wolff and Taurek both believe that this principle is too calculating, and does not take into account the emotions of the decision-maker. Both essays use examples that involve choosing between killing one person you know and many people you don’t know. Taurek uses the example of having a pill that can save one person he knows, or five strangers. Wolff tells a narrative about a man choosing between killing his only son, or a hundred people on a train.

In a simplistic sense Utilitarianism, originally established by Jeremy Bentham, is the ethical and teleological theory which maintains it is the total consequences of an action which determines its rightness or wrongness; that is, it is not just my happiness which should be taken into account but the happiness of everyone concerned. However, although this is the classical approach to Utilitarianism, this theory as be interpreted in numerous ways- in this essay I will focus on three (Act, rule and preference utilitarianism). Another approach to moral philosophy was put forward by Immanuel Kant, Kant proposes that only duty and rules should govern our actions, as consequences are beyond our control. As a Deontologist Kant faces the same problems

Since ancient times people have been questioning the morality of their decisions. Many turned to religion to guide their actions, while some fortunate few could spend the time to decide for themselves. Reality has a way of clouding judgment, but having a clear understanding of what is and isn't moral acts as a lodestone on the path to making moral decisions. The principals of morality have not changed much in the span of recorded history, so understanding the thoughts of those fortunate thinkers before us is an important catalyst to developing a strong moral code of our own. But, there have been thousands of such thinkers in the past, so it becomes prudent to limit the scope of our evaluation. Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two very important ethical philosophers in western thought who hold contrasting but similarly influential opinions on what constitutes a moral action. To summarize the question: Between Kant's Deontological ethics and Mill's Utilitarianism, which is the best approach to making moral decisions?

An instance where utilitarianism is not beneficial is if there were a bomb in a major city and the daughter of the alleged terrorist is in custody, although she may be innocent she is leverage. In this situation it would be morally wrong to torture her but if no action is taken then thousands of innocent lives die. Kantianism is on the basis of treating everyone with respect as a means and not a mere of means. Kantianism is not rooted in selfishness but relates to the general population relevant to yourself.

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

For men, there are two avenues to reason. Morality: the appeal to human emotions and a sense of intrinsic good, and logic: the appeal to human understanding of the world. While a number of moral theories exist, none of them is more well documented that Utilitarianism, which focuses on the maximization of total utility. I will discuss the theory initially, and then identify the major problems associated with it. I will conclude with a rationale as to how effective Utilitarianism is as a modern moral theory.

weakness of each with examples. The goal of this paper is to support my claim that

Utilitarianism is the argument that all actions must be made for the greatest happiness for the greater number of people (Bentham, 42). However, utilitarianism cannot always be the basis of one’s decisions due to the fact that people need to look out for their own pain and pleasure before consulting others’ wellbeing. I will first explain the arguments of the utilitarianism ideal. Then I willl explain why this argument is unconvincing. Ultimately, I will then prove why people consider their own happiness before considering others. Thus showing the utilitarianism view is implausible due to the need for people to consider their own happiness when making decisions or else they themselves will be experiencing the most pain and unhappiness.

Numerous moral theories have surfaced in the past years. They have been widely debated by philosophers and social reformers. It is important to understand what these theories are because of their influential tendencies in the way people act, especially in making morally right or wrong decisions. Utilitarianism is one of these many moral theories. Upon further analysis, problems with utilitarian thoughts are revealed. It has been widely debated by many philosophers, including G.E. Moore and Immanuel Kant. Like these two philosophers, I argue that utilitarianism is inadequate because of its contradictory nature as a moral theory. It highlights the principle of utility in seeking the greatest pleasure, allowing egotistic and hedonistic actions to be considered moral.