Differences Between Utilitarianism And Kantianism

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that states something is considered to be right when it does the most good for most the most amount of people (Duignan 2015). This theory doesn’t consider the feelings of the individual; it considers the feelings of the majority (Duignan 2015). Utilitarianism is very different from relativism, which takes into account the totality of circumstances, this philosophical theory states that what is considered to be right or wrong can vary depending on people and society (Rachels 2015).

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.

If you had the option to choose, would you rather live in a society where you are treated as a rational being or a world where your contentment in life could all be taken away as a means of contributing to someone else’s happiness. When reflecting upon ethics and the many different theories, it is no question that Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham come to mind. After all, two of the most pronounced ethical theories are Kantianism and Utilitarianism. These two principles are extremely important and have had endless impacts on ethics and the world as a whole. These philosophers, Kant and Bentham, worked to study moral nature and developed theories based on moral philosophy. Although they are quite contrasting,

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

The focus of this paper will be R. G. Frey’s passage in “Moral Standing, the Value of Lives, and Speciesism”. The intended objection of the focus will be two moral theories, Kantianism and Act Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism being the rebuttal of the Kantianism view on the moral issue at hand.

Utilitarians on the other hand would disagree with Kant on several points. Utilitarians would argue that actions should be decided by the consequences they would produce. Remember that utilitarians believe in the good for the greatest number. In an argument against Kant’s theory, they would say that the

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

Both religions follow the “Golden Rule” and enlighten their followers on the benefits of it in achieving salvation. Utilitarianism also focuses its teachings on decision’s outcome as suppose to a code of laws which gives individual ethical grounds for making decisions that reduces suffering, similar to virtue teachings. A good example is when people compliment another person about their looks despite the negative outlook in their mind.

Before we get to the premises of my argument, I would like to distinguish the difference between virtue ethics, Kantian deontology and utilitarianism. Unlike virtue ethics, Kantian and utilitarianism tell us what our duty is to our fellow human beings. In utilitarianism the goal is to increase happiness for the greatest number of people. This often requires self-sacrifice and it can be quite demanding to figure out what decision will have the best consequence and the most happiness. Kantian ethics, on the other hand tells us to do what would be universally acceptable. Meaning that something is morally right if every single person in the planet is allowed to do the

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

Unlike Utilitarianism however, Kantianism states that ethics is a purely a priori discipline, thus, independent of experience, and that ethical rules can only be found through pure reason. Also contrary to Utilitarianism, Kantianism asserts that the moral worth of an action should be judged on its motive and the action itself, and not on its consequences. Based on these ideas, Kantianism propose that an action is good only if it performed out a 'good will '; which is the only thing that is good, in and of itself. To act out of a 'good will ', one must act in accordance with a categorical imperative. According to Kant there is only one categorical imperative, which is to "act only on that maxim in which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (Kant, 528); and can also be formulated as "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as means, but always at the same time as an end" (Kant, 532). Essentially, the categorical imperative states that your actions must not result in a practical contradiction, which can be determined by conceptualizing all other people performing the same act. To illustrate, if I were

This ethical system is different from both the Utilitarian of Mill and the Categorical Imperative of Kant. The principle of utilitarianism holds the belief in the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Mill equates happiness with pleasure, while pleasures are of higher and lower value. Pleasures of mind are higher than the pleasures of body. For instance, pleasure of learning is more valuable than pleasures of eating and drinking. The decision on value of pleasure rests on the consensus of experienced observers. The moral foundation of utilitarianism rests on the principle of “greatest happiness of the greatest number” where happiness of every sentient being counts equally. The ethical system as proposed in this paper draws from the unique human capacity of love

Has anyone of us witnessed a team discussing an ethical decision involving a specific case study with many conflicting versions of the story? It is interesting to follow. Some of the debate participants feel so confident about being "right" that they will persist until they win the hearts of their opponents. Some participants will just waffle and attempt to analyze the situation from variant dimensions (Lukas 72). Analyzing a specific Case Study relating to terms of confidentiality, this document looks into definitions of morality under two independent systems- Kantianism and Utilitarianism theoretical approaches. This paper seeks to

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.

Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)