Kantianism Vs Rule Utilitarianism

Kant's theory is different to utilitarians. It is based on a deontological approach, a non-consequentialist approach to ethics. The key aspect in this is goodwill, which is the ability to act out of duty and principle (Seedhouse, 2001). Morality in this theory is absolute, the actions of right or wrong is independent from consequences. The categorical imperative is the foundation in this theory, it determines if the action is

J.J.C. Smart believed that utilitarianism is the best way to determine whether an action is morally right or not. Utilitarianism in general has to do with an action benefiting the most people by bringing the most happiness to the world as possible. Everybody’s interests and moral importance is equal; in other words, nobody is any more or any less special than the rest of us. In “Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism,” Smart discussed two kinds: extreme utilitarianism and restricted utilitarianism. The main difference between these two is how rules play into the views. In extreme utilitarianism, rules are more like “rules of thumb” (Smart 79). Extreme utilitarians use these “rules” as guidelines that suggest ways for us to live; the “rules” aren’t set in stone, so they can be broken if breaking them means bringing about better consequences than adhering to the rule would bring. On the

Kants moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. Kants theory focuses on the motivation of actions, has clear and distinct set of universal rules, and is morally logical. Kant’s central focus is on motives, fairness, and the basic idea of treating persons as autonomous and morally equal beings. Utilitarianism is based on the concept that we ought to do whatever produces the greatest overall utility and this would be considered morally right action. Utilitarianism relies on the consequences of an action, has no set universal laws as each action is assessed on an individual basis, and morality is based on the results of the assessment.

Ethics requires an analysis of our moral concepts and Kant conceived of it. We should interpret the concept of generosity, accountability, duty, etc as well as their relevant relationship to each other before we can determine whether our use of the concepts are justified. Kant’s view of ethics focuses on the right and wrongs of the actions themselves as argued to the right and wrongs of the consequences of those actions or the character of the person. His contributions to ethics were the theory of the Categorical Imperative (CI). In contrast to Utilitarianism it can never be right to manipulate, misuse or deceive individuals even in the interests of others or even the perceived greater good. Kant argued that each person in his own moral agent, and we should be accountable only for our own measures and not the measures of

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

However, some arguments against the rule utilitarianism are mentioned, such as they may do the more good with violate the rule than obey it who are irrationally supporting the rule-based actions which criticized by act utilitarian, and they think this like a form of “rule worship”, non rational respect to rules that has no utilitarian

I think I would use combination of ethical theories based on the situation. I would prefer to use Kantianism, Act Utilitarianism, and Rawl’s Theory of Justice as they are the most workable theories. Kantianism ethical theory depends on good will. It also follows the moral rules along with universal moral rules. Every person is equally treated and one should be able to choose whether it is right or wrong. If they say it is right or wrong they should have the proper answer to argue for their decisions.

Immanuel Kant is the founder of the Kantian branch of ethics and morality, and his theories are personally my favorite theory of ethics so far. According to the utilitarianism, the best action is the one

Kant’s ethical theory is a theory by Immanuel Kant, a german philosopher that was introduced in the year of 1785 in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant’s theory is mainly divided into two parts: categorical and hypothetical imperative. Categorical imperative, is an unconditional moral obligation which is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person’s inclination or purpose (oxforddictionaries.com) whereas hypothetical imperatives is a moral obligatio that applies only if one desires the implicated goal (oxforddictionaries.com).

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.

Kant Ethics were proposed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who was of the opinion that it ought to be possible at all times for an individual to do the right thing as long as it is within their power and control. Kant presupposes that, in his ethics, the rightness or wrongness of an action is dependent on the intentions of their doer. This, Kant ethics believe, means that an individual's intentions play a crucial role in shaping the morality of their actions. Kant also suggested that is hard for an individual to do the right thing for the wrong reasons and vice versa. So, the ability to be good and be showered with praise or be bad and be condemned with endless blame lies squarely within our control

Ethics is one way of regulatory human behavior, a special form of social consciousness and a view of public relations. There are a number of definitions of morality, which set off certain of its essential properties. The morality is one way to control the behavior of people in society. It is a system of principles and norms governing relations between people in accordance with the concepts in the society of good and evil, just and unjust, worthy and unworthy. Compliance with the requirements of morality provided spiritual influence, public opinion, inner conviction, a person's conscience. Democracy is a fragile system, and without appropriate conditions for its maintenance, it will be destroyed.

Kant’s theory of the categorical imperative contrasts greatly to the principle of utilitarianism. Kant’s categorical imperative states you are intended to act a certain way because it is your duty to do so. Kant principle also states, to correctly do ones duty, one must make decisions while excluding the influences of the actions’ effects, and our own inclinations, therefore, one must think in a deontological thinker, to a certain extent. Kant also states in order to make a moral decision, one must have a choice, and so, if one cannot make a choice, and then they do not need to make a morally correct decision. Kant’s theory is fair and treats all individuals equally, promoting an equal society, as no one person can be valued above the rest.

Many classical liberal moral theory occurred based on the modern ideas of liberal. All the theories provides people different ideas of morality in modern society. This paper will discuss two ethics theories, utilitarianism and Kantianism. These two theories have opposite ideas in many aspects. As a result, they offer people different views of moral action. I will compare the major three differences between utilitarianism and Kantianism in the first part: idea of happiness, good will and result, and individual right. Even though both theories have their points and flaws, Kantianism would be a better approach to guide people's moral lives. I will talk about why Kantianism is a better theory compare to utilitarianism in the second part of the paper.

Raymond Baumhart, a sociologist gave insight on what Ethics means in his viewpoint. He had mentioned that when feelings are put into the equation, it can have drawbacks of doing what is morally correct. Also, putting Religion in an Ethical review can undermine the one’s that do not believe or have different beliefs. Religion will give some people inner peace, and it may give the foundation to think morally, but religion and ethics are not equivalent. Furthermore, laws are put into place to maintain some structure of what is acceptable in the eyes of the law,