There are many views on ethical theory, everyone has a different opinion on what is ethical and what is moral in others’ lives. Two main examples of ethical theories are Utilitarianism and Kantianism. Utilitarianism is why our actions should promote the greater good of all. Kantianism is why we should look at our intentions of the particular actions we take. Immanuel Kant came up with his own ideas when working with ethical theory, Kantianism. These 2 theories are very different from each other. They both try to understand what is best for people. Kantianism was known as a critique of utilitarianism. Instead of thinking only about the end result, you should not use others as a means to an end. There are many contrast between utilitarianism …show more content…
154). There are many sub divisions of utilitarianisms, act and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism is the simplest form, it determines the right choice that will have the best consequences for the welfare of everyone. Rule utilitarianism follows the same moral code that is used that would be best for your society. Hedonism idea is to view our actions to make sure we are promoting happiness not just for ourselves but also the people around us. The actions we take should be for whatever will work best to benefit everyone in the long run, just for the moment. “During one of Joshua Greene debates after he learned about utilitarianism argument of making our actions be used to benefit the well-being of others. In the debate, the opponent was arguing the value of free speech, Greene asked if free speech was an important value is the debates and there for has no other values that can precedence over free speech, with the opponent answering yes. Greene’s argument concluded with if someone in a crowded theater decided it would be fun to shout “Fire”, which ended up causing people to rush to the exit of the movie theater and for few to be trampled and die” (Greene, 2013, pg. 108). Was having the right of free speech to shout fire outweigh the right of being trampled to death in the chaos of the theater. The utilitarian …show more content…
You are standing on a bridge over the rail way tracks, you see a trolley coming and on the other side there are five people who are stuck the track. If no action is taken those five people will be killed by the oncoming trolley. On the bridge with you there is another man who is wearing a backpack, if he were to jump in front of the trolley then the five people will be saved. He is not willing to jump and you cannot stop the train by jumping because you do not have the backpack on. You could push the man off the bridge to save the five people, which would cause the man to die or do nothing and have the 5 people die on the tracks (Greene, 2013, pg. 114). This is a very personal example of choosing the Kantianism view or the utilitarianism view. Kantian view is to not push the man off the bridge because you are using him as a mere means. If he is not willing to jump to save the five people then you are not allowed to do anything. The utilitarian side is to push the man off the bridge. Using the man to stop the trolley will be best for the greater good by saving five other people. Because this is such a personal decision of choosing whether or not to push the man off the bridge, many people see this as morally wrong and would choose to not use the man as a mere
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that an action is considered right as long as it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later was refined by J.S Mill. Mill differs from Bentham by introducing a qualitative view on pleasure and makes a distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. John Hospers critiques utilitarianism and shows that rule utilitarianism under more specific and stricter rules would promote utility better. Bernard Williams believes that utilitarianism is too demanding from people and instead believes virtue ethics is a better solution. Williams seems to have only considered act utilitarianism instead of rule utilitarianism, which may have better responses to the problems proposed by Williams. Sterling Hardwood purposes eleven objections to utilitarianism which can be used to help make compromise between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. I will argue that rule utilitarianism can be formed in such a way that it avoids the problems that arise from Williams, and Hardwood.
Utilitarian’s judge the ethics of the situation based on the outcome. Kant believes that “good will has nothing to do with the outcome” (Garner PowerPoint). In the case of comparing these two views a simple example will be used: a lie to save a life.
Philosophy has been a field of study for centuries. Some philosophers have developed ways to determine what is ethical and what is not. This has led to several normative ethical theories describing how people are ought to live a moral life. Some of the most prominent of these theories have set the criteria for morality in very unique and peculiar ways. Two of which are the ethical egoistic theory and the utilitarian theory, each seeing morality in its own distinctive way. By comparing and contrasting the view these theories pose on morality and by analyze how each stands in some of the world’s most modern day issues, one can understand why utilitarianism is a
My question stems from the “The trolley problem” which gives a person the imaginary option of pulling a lever to save five people from an oncoming trolley and killing one person or letting the trolley go and kill the five people saving, that one other person. Another way this dilemma is set up is: say you were walking on a bridge with a fat man and you saw that a trolley was coming below you and was about to hit five people but, you knew if you pushed this fat man off the bridge to block the trolley then you could save the five people at the expense of the fat
In Thomson’s Bystander Two Options case the ethical question of killing versus letting die is at debate. From previous studies it has been found that the popular opinion agrees that it is ethically acceptable to let someone die but not acceptable to kill someone. In Thomson’s case the bystander must choose the action of killing one innocent person which my seem “right” or letting five innocent people die. In the case there happens to be a random bystander on the trolley track right at the switch that can change the course of the trolley at any moment. If the bystander turns the switch to the right one workman will die but the bystander would be saving five workmen straight ahead on the track.
In Utilitarianism the aim of our actions is to achieve happiness for the greatest number of people. “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mill, 1971). Utilitarianism directly appeals to human emotions and our reactions to different events. Emotions are a fundamental Way of Knowing and influence both ethical and economical theories. In most cultures there are fundame...
Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987). Utilitarianism and other essays. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Although both an act-utilitarian and a rule-utilitarian, both defend the utilitarianism main claim of us doing “what is optimific. [Meaning] we must maximize overall well-being,” (FE, 138). The main claim of each form is different.
The difference between the two comes to Kantian theory doesn 't account for the consequences and rule utilitarianism does. For Kant, it doesn 't matter what happens as a result of your will and duty as the law as it doesn 't compromise the sovereignty of other rational beings. The rule utilitarianism main goal is to maximize collective human happiness and welfare, and unlike Kant, how believes that one should under no circumstance breaks, your own Maxim thus severing the like between Duty and Will. Rule utilitarianism allows more flexibility in people 's actions and behaviors
However, in my opinion, Kantian ethics is a slightly better ethical theory than consequentialism for several reasons. Primarily, the theory of consequentialism compels us in measuring the benefits and harm that could result from our action while Kantian ethics does not. Just as in the case of the “Footbridge Dilemma”, Kant’s approach to ethics does not require us to give value to the lives of the five workers and the innocent man and choose the act that would result in the greatest net benefit. Second, instead of considering the consequences, Kantian ethics focuses on the intent of our action, which means, “the morality of actions depends entirely on what is within our control” (Landau, 2015, p.164). Finally, Kant’s view deemed actions “that sometimes make … the best consequences [as] wrong” (Hurka, 2014, p. 135). This means that acts of killing and stealing, no matter how much optimific results they bring, are immoral under Kantian ethics. However, despite the strengths of Kant’s view over consequentialism, it is undisputable that “Kantian theory is not without its own problems, and many of those are neatly addressed by consequentialism” (Landau, 2015,
Act-utilitarianism is a direct form of consequentialism in that its principles are applied directly to ones actions under particular circumstances and the action is then judged as morally permissible or impermissible based solely on whether your action achieved or failed to maximise pleasure. In contrast, rule-utilitarianism is considered indirect because your actions are carried out according to a set of accepted moral rules of which compliance with which would ensure maximum aggregate good. Whether an action is morally permissible or impermissible is judged on your adherence to the agreed set of moral rules as opposed to the direct outcome of your actions. It would seem already that rule-utilitaria...
As a deontological, or duty-based, theory, Kantianism is focus on intent. If the intent behind an action is morally praiseworthy and fits into the categorical imperative, it must be ethical. The categorical imperative is the main element in Kantianism, and it states that you must act as if it was universal law. This is similar to the Golden Rule of “treat others how you wish to be treated” and is a way to determine whether an act is morally praiseworthy. Kantian ethics are different from utilitarianism in that happiness is not a
...nces. Kantianism focuses on the motivation of actions, has clear and distinct set of universal rules, and is morally logical. On the other hand, 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. Because of these reasons, I believe that Kantianism is the more ethically plausible theory of the two.
First we will start with the historical example of the execution of Jesus. Pontius Pilate was put into a situation where a large crowd had attempted to persuade him that Jesus should be killed instead of a convicted murderer, even though Jesus had done nothing wrong. The majority won and he was killed. The Utilitarians can justify this action because the majority gained happiness from this. On the other hand, those who support Kant’s theory will argue that Jesus had done nothing wrong and his right were clearly violated making the action
This problem presents the following situation: A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workers who will all be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. You are standing next to a large switch that can divert the trolley onto a different track. The only way to save the lives of the five workers is to divert the trolley onto another track that only has one worker on it. If you divert the trolley onto the other track, this one worker will die, but the other five workers will be saved.