Utilitarianism Versus Kant's Theories

Utilitarianism is another theory in which its main objective is to explain the nature of ethics and morality. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which is based upon utility, or doing that which produces the greatest happiness. According to a utilitarian the morality of act is found just if the consequence produces the greatest overall utility for everyone. However, if the greatest possible utility is not produced, the action is then morally wrong. This view says that a person should act as to produce the greatest overall happiness and pleasure for everyone who may be directly or indirectly affected by the action. Therefore, a utilitarian would require that for every action the corresponding consequences for every action should be thoroughly weighed and alternatives proposed before deciding whether or not to perform such an action.

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,

The three principles of utilitarianism are “1. All ‘pleasures’ or benefits are not equal, 2. The system presumes that one can predict the consequences of one’s actions, and 3. There is little concern for individual rights” (Pollock,

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.

First, I would like to address the teachings of Immanuel Kant. Kant is known for his studies of deontology, or duty ethics, which is “an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (virtue ethics).” (Mastin) Kant specializes in many ideas, but the ideas I will focus on are: the will, good will, the categorical imperative, and the principle of humanity.

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.

My initial impression of The Kantian Perspective, was that it made a lot more sense than utilitarianism. Being raised in a Christian household, I immediately agreed with the idea that the morality of one’s behavior is based on the actions they take and their reasoning for taking said actions. It made sense to me that the results of one actions could not be the basis for judging their character because intent and choosing between the universal rights and wrongs are HUGE parts of biblical principles (i.e The Ten Commandments).

Two seemingly contradictory normative theories are utilitarianism and Kantian deontology. By answering two hypothetical questions, I will contrast and compare the two theories. Though one is consequential and the other deontological, they share the concept of universalizing actions. After examining the two ethical conundrums, both of which I personally view as ethical, I prefer Kantianism because of its concepts of good will and human value.

Ethics refers to what people consider good or bad and right or wrong. It is a theory dealing with values that relate to human behaviour; with respect to their actions and purpose. The two most important philosophers that deal with ethics are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Kant’s ethical theory is Kantianism or deontological ethics. Mill’s ethical theory is utilitarianism. Both philosophers’ theories have many differences; Kant’s theory deals with conduct, seeking reason for good action in duty. Mill’s theory deals with consequences and maximizing human happiness. However both Kant and Mill’s ethics relate to the important biblical principal of the Golden Rule.

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

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.

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.

The utilitarian theory would approach the ethical dilemmas by a identifying the stakeholders for the situation, and the possible consequences on these stakeholders, also it requires thinking broadly for consequences and impact on the society level not only on the close circle around the dilemma (Trevino p40).