Kantian Ethics And Utilitarianism Are At Variance On Issues Of Morality

Utilitarian’s try to separate the action from the actor, and look at the bigger picture over the individual. Followers of Kant, disagree with this approach, and claim that in this system, minorities and individuals are often overlooked and brushed aside. Kant argues that any action cannot be moral unless the motives are moral.

Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.

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.

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

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

person cannot consent to the act such as making a false promise or deceiving someone.

In “Utilitarianism” John Stuart Mills argues that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Feasibly, the strongest argument provided by Mills postulates that happiness is the solo basis of morality, and that humans never desire anything other than happiness. Since happiness underlies our morals, then happiness is needed for morality. In this paper, I will object to this ideology because morals stand in the way of true happiness.

As the world witnessed the horrors of 9/11 and the ensuing Global War on Terror committed by different belligerents, it found itself in an ethical debate as how it was to respond to this reality. The Church found itself in a particularly peculiar situation as it is widely regarded as a moral compass a majority of all people of earth.

Would utilitarianism be more beneficial to our society than kantianism? Utilitarianism is based on the principle of maximizing utility through the available set of actions. Kantianism also known as deontological theories, is the principle to treat everyone respectfully as a means to an end and not a mere of means. Utilitarianism is on the basis of actions available that will produce the most utility. For an act to be right it must maximize utility.

If, even with man’s best effort, nothing is achieved, any process of good will must be regarded as such (394). This marks a definite shift in philosophical thought; the consideration of good without any remark on the consequences of one’s actions and thoughts. Kant does not emphasize the creation of happiness as the goal of one’s choices, since happiness is a subjective marker open to corruption (396). Multiple actions can produce this result, while the same action can differ in its consequences. This uncertainty necessitates a different, more concrete definition of moral value.

In this paper, I shall argue that while a naturalistic moral theory Mill’s Utilitarism is a flexible and sensitive to circumstances (act and rule) as long as overall happiness is the end goal and promotes social harmony, that his position is a lacks of autonomy/integrity of the moral agent, is a negative responsibility because utilitarianism is an excessively demanding theory, act utilitarianism may require us to commit morally reprehensible acts, there is sometimes conflict of rules for the rule utilitarian, and Kant’s categorical imperative does a much better job of accounting for moral goodness. I believe Kant’s view is more desirable for because it gives you the ability to choose your moral projects, it is rational, consistent, and impartial, it is a moral framework for rights, and lastly it has non-relativistic rights and duties.

Utilitarianism has been defined as a philosophy which supports the view that the actions of every person are motivated by the desire to maximize utility. In this paper I seek to answer questions based on the understanding of utilitarianism as discussed by John Stuart Mill in chapter four.

The next stage involves a critical analysis of the just described theoretical systems. We will explore the factors and influences involved in a chosen Case Study where personal influences are involved. Thereafter, we will look into different approaches a Kantian and a Utilitarian would address the issue and the reasons behind. It will be imperative to understand the actual factors influencing decisions under each of the moral systems identified (Lukas 22).

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)