Utilitarianism vs. Kantianism Essay

Deontology is an ethical theory concerned with duties and rights. The founder of deontological ethics was a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant. Kant’s deontological perspective implies people are sensitive to moral duties that require or prohibit certain behaviors, irrespective of the consequences (Tanner, Medin, & Iliev, 2008). The main focus of deontology is duty: deontology is derived from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. A duty is morally mandated action, for instance, the duty never to lie and always to keep your word. Based on Kant, even when individuals do not want to act on duty they are ethically obligated to do so (Rich, 2008).

John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham have been recognized as the founders of Utilitarianism. Contrary to Kant’s moral theories, Utilitarian’s would disagree with most of Kant’s theory. While Kant believed that it is the intention of the action that should be recognized as moral or unmoral, J.S Mill and Bentham would say that it is in fact the outcome of said action that determines morality.

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

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

The biggest reason why people would choose utilitarianism over kantian theory is because Kantian is too rigid. There is no flexibility in his methods. That maybe somewhat true but moral theories should be. They should consist of rules. That way people are more likely to abide by them. For example, Kant believes “Lying is always wrong”. So if some killer comes into your house asking for the location of your children. You can lie. No one is going to force you to tell the truth. If you feel like your reasoning is good enough go ahead lie. You just know at the end of the day lying is morally

The differences between perfect and imperfect duties are fundamental points in the Kantian moral theories. Perfect duties are the one that individuals must do only when the certain situations or opportunities arises. Utilitarianism on the other hand is the alternative theory and its primary objective is to adequately explain the nature of morality and ethics. Unlike Kantian theory, Utilitarianism operates on the basis of utility, meaning usefulness or efficacy, or sometimes doing things that result in ultimate happiness. According to utilitarianism, the effects of the consequences determine the presence of the ethics of act, for example, if such consequence produces the total utility in human beings. Nevertheless, if the highest utility is not released, the action can be considered wrong. A person ought to act in such a manner that the action yields utmost pleasure and happiness for every person who may be indirectly or directly affected by the action. The unique obligation of this theory is that for every action, the equivalent consequences for all actions ought to be thoroughly evaluated and the suggestion of options should be done before the decision concerning the execution of such actions is made. Both theories are related since they both attempt to explain how to

At the same time, it considers the interest of everyone equally (rule utilitarianism). Utilitarian’s believe happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value. In the eyes Kant, not everyone deserves to be happy. But, for utilitarianism the goal is to generate the greatest amount of happiness with the least amount of harm. The most notable difference between the two theories is morality and happiness.

Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that morality should be based on producing the most amount of happiness for the most about of people as possible with our actions. Utilitarianism is made up of three parts: consequentialism, hedonism, and impartiality. We must

Ever since Kant 's publication of his renowned ethical treatises, deontologists and utilitarians alike have argued over which moral theory is most coherent. Yet, in Mill 's critique of Kant, Mill sidesteps this issue, not by directly critiquing Kant 's moral theory, but rather by asserting that Kant 's moral theory is actually just a form of utilitarianism. Essentially, Kant 's universal law test is nothing more than a veiled appeal to consequences, as Mill correctly claims in his critique of Kant.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory of someone's best action that maximizes utility. There are two branches of utilitarianism, the first is act which states we should choose our actions based on what will cause the greatest amount of help. The second branch is rule, we should decide what causes the greatest happiness and then set rules. There are two utilitarians with different theories on happiness.

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.

Utilitarian moral theory is based upon the principle “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” or as Mill has termed it, “the greater happiness principle” . That is to say, that an action undertaken should strive to maximise happiness and minimise pain and that this is what determines whether or not an action is the right thing to do. Kantian moral theory, on the other hand, is based upon the concept that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by whether or not it follows the moral rule and whether or not it can be universally applied. One of the most immediate differences that one can see between the two theories is that Kantian moral theory is concerned with the intent of an action whereas utilitarianism only concerns itself with the end result of an action. This difference is key to understanding the differing perspectives of the two schools of thought. In the aforementioned moral dilemma, a teacher must decide between lying about the test results of one of their students which would result in the student being granted a scholarship which is necessary for them to attend university in order to enter a career path in which the teacher believes they could contribute greatly or whether they

ABSTRACT: In his essay "Could Kant Have Been a Utilitarian?", R. M. Hare tries to show that Kant's moral theory contains utilitarian elements and it can be properly asked if Kant could have been a utilitarian, though in fact he was not. I take seriously Hare's challenge to the standard view because I find his reading on the whole reasonable enough to lead to a consistent interpretation of Kant's moral philosophy. Still, I hardly believe that it is necessarily concluded from Hare's reading that Kant could have been a utilitarian. In this paper, I will first show that Hare's interpretation of 'treating a person as an end' as treating a person's ends as our own is reasonable, and so is his reading of

Humans were created as rational beings with the capacity to think and feel. Sometimes, we are placed in situations where our morals are tested and it becomes too difficult to differentiate between what is good and what we want; to understand what is deemed morally acceptable and how that relates to our desires. Is it acceptable to steal, if your intentions are good? In order to answer this question, I will analyze two concepts: Kantian Ethics and Communitarian Ethics. Using Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine by Bonnie Steinbock, Alex London, and John Arras, I will explain both concepts and their understanding of moral reasoning. Focusing on categorical imperatives and the universality test, I will explain Kantian ethics in reference to the good will. I will then explain Communitarian ethics in reference to collectivism. Using both ethical concepts, I will come to a conclusion for these approaches in the moral dilemma about stealing, focusing primarily on Kantian ethics, which I believe to have a better grasp of what is morally correct, and why it is a good interpretation of moral reasoning. I will use both approaches to explain why it is always good to do the right thing and not necessarily what is right for an individual. I will then explain why Kantian ethics has a more correct approach to moral decision in comparison to communitarian ethics.

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.