Kantianism Vs Utilitarianism

     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:

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).

Kant’s ethics differs from utilitarian ethics both in its scope and in the precision with which it guides action. In The Categorical Imperative, Kant emphasizes that human autonomy is the essence of morality. He says that one must act not only in accordance to duty, but for the sake of duty However, According to the Utilitarianism, Mill emphasizes that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness. Although the theories of Kant and Mill seem conflicting, they are also similar and both theories are interested in liberty for individuals.

In the omission on application situation it poses the question on what Grace should do. Should she lie and possibly be fired, but take the risk and get the job? Or should she tell the truth and there is a chance she will get the job but the chance is greatly decreased? I am going to discuss which side I would take. Also what good and negative things come out of both sides and which ones outway the others. The views of the Kantian and the principle of universalizability and not ever lying are both good points that should be brought up and I will discuss both, and my view on them. Also the Utilitarian view on the happiness calculus and always choosing the act that will have the greatest overall happiness outcome is another great view that I will

Two opposing views about morality in ethics are Utilitarianism and Kantianism. Utilitarianism (in this case, extreme utilitarianism) is endorsed by J.J.C. Smart, and it tells us that in order to determine which actions are right and which actions are wrong we must first consider the consequences of each option. Kantianism is based on the philosophy of German philosopher Immanuel Kant and endorses fairness, universalizability of actions, and humanity. Both views offer a way to figure out a solution; however, each view is very likely to give solutions completely opposite from the other view.

Moreover, Kantianism is the ethical theory that German philosopher Immanuel Kant ascribed. According to the theory, the morality of an action depends on whether they fulfill one's duty. Kant believed that the supreme principle of morality was the categorical imperative. He described categorical imperatives as commands one should always follow, regardless of one’s desires. A categorical imperative is formulated if its maxim - the principle one gives themselves when they are about to do something - is universalizable. To determine whether a maxim is universalizable there is a three part test: First, one should state what they intend to do and why they intend to do it. Second, imagine a world where everyone supports and acts on the maxim. Third,

Barb: The world "likely" is what makes me nervous. I would have to hope that my baby would be fine. If knew without a doubt that my child would have a severe disease that didn't give him/her any quality of life such as being a vegetable or in a such a depressed mental state that they would have no quality of life, I would probably abort the fetus. I don't think that is fair to the child in that case - what kind of a life is that. If I go back to the subject at hand which is "likely" and consider the Kantian and Utilitarian opinions, Kantian would consider the dignity of everyone - including the unborn child - and wouldn't abort as there is a chance of a normal life. A utilitarian would want to take the choice that creates "the greatest

For this assignment we are to briefly describe the following ethical theories in our own words: Ethical relativism, Utilitarianism, and Kant’s categorical imperative.

I believe that the appeal of Kant’s moral theory is its direct opposition to utilitarianism. Between the two theories, I find Kant’s theory more in keeping with and useful in my daily life and that of society as a whole. I, for one, uphold the human dignity of every man and his autonomy to be self-directed and, therefore, responsible for his action. Thus, man has the ought to respect every human being as a person of moral worth and valued for what he is, regardless of his utility to us and our ends. As MacKinnon (2012) cited, “Always treat humanity whether in your person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end” (p. 79).

There is little doubt that Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics are by far the two most important ethical theories throughout contemporary philosophy. Though both attempt to answer questions about morality and behavior, the two theories have many fundamental differences: one evaluates actions in terms of the utility they produce whereas the other considers whether actions fulfill duty; one emphasizes consequence where the other highlights intentions; one sees desire as essential while the other precludes it and values reason. For years, philosophers have raised many objections towards each of the two theories, some of which are very compelling. In this paper, I will introduce and explain two famous objections to Classical Utilitarianism and anticipate how a non-utilitarian Consequentialist might try to avoid these problems. I will also describe the basic idea of Kantian Ethics and explain why Kant’s theory is less vulnerable to the harsh criticisms faced by Utilitarianism.

This week’s readings focused on Mill’s ideas about Utilitarianism theory and Kantian Ethics. Mill believed that certain pleasures were necessary in human beings living a happy life. He also based his theory off of pleasure and pain (Yoshikawa, 2016, p. 1). Kantian Ethics elaborates on one’s moral obligations. Kant believed that following absolute moral rules were what morality was all about (Yoshikawa, Lecture 3 Kantian Ethics, 2016, p. 1).

Jeremy Bentham founded Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is to defend the view that those acts that produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people are right and good” (Deininger 2015). This theory focuses on the outcome of an action that leads to good. The action considered to be good to the greatest number of people affected by action. Immanual Kant Moral theory is applied to everyone no matter what the situation is. Appling it to all people regardless of the scenario faced. “The Kant’s basic moral principle is comparable for his moral philosophy to the principle of utility for utilitarians. It is Kant’s test for right and wrong” (McKinnon 2015).

I believe that the appeal of Kant’s moral theory is its direct opposition to utilitarianism. Between the two theories, I find Kant’s theory more in keeping with and useful in my daily life and that of society as a whole. I, for one, uphold the human dignity of every man and his autonomy to be self-directed and, therefore, responsible for his action. Thus, man has the ought to respect every human being as a person of moral worth and value for what he is, regardless of his utility to us and our ends.

Ethics is moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or conducting of an activity (Oxford Dictionaries | English, 2017). Once the norms of individual behaviours are established, this goes on to shaping society. Ethics is something that has existed since the dawn of civilisation and will continue to exist as it prevents an anomic society. Although, there are inveterate laws in place to maintain harmony and avoid anomie, it all essentially derives from ethics, for example we have legal ethics. Whether this equilibrium exists today is a different matter of its own. This essay will discuss two perspectives, utilitarianism, and the Kantian approach to ethics with the use of two case studies to support the arguments presented.

In this essay, I will be discussing an article about a woman who starved her two horses. I will address the issue about whether or not the woman’s action was ethical. I will use the two ethical theories of utilitarianism and Kantian ethics to support my argument. I will also suggest a different course of action the woman could have taken to be justified, through both ethical theories.