Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
utilitarianism vs kant
utilitarianism vs kant
contemporary debate about slavery
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: utilitarianism vs kant
Kant’s moral theory and utilitarianism are two very different moral theories. Kant’s moral theory works off of the categorical imperative. Utilitarianism works off of the greatest happiness principle. Morality and right action are very different within these two theories, and the idea of slavery is a good example of the differences. Utilitarianism can allow slavery, whereas Kant’s moral theory cannot allow slavery.
Kant’s moral theory uses the categorical imperative as its basis. The categorical imperative states “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. (Kant, pg. 30) A maxim is a reason a person commits and act. (Kant, pg. 30) Kant does not believe a person can act merely from duty. He believes that every individual has some ulterior motive for every action, therefore no individual can act from duty. A good will can be achieved only if an individual acts from duty. A good will in itself is the best action possible. (Kant, pg 7) Kant believes it is impossible to know if an individual is acting from duty. The alternatives are acting in accordance to duty, and contrary to duty. If an individual acts contrary to duty, then the person is not performing a good will. If the individual acts in accordance to duty, then the action chosen was right. Acting in accordance to duty is the best an individual can knowingly achieve. The only way an action can be considered good, is if it follows the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative can be followed if the maxim for the action can become a universal law. Kant’s moral theory is straight forward compared to most. There is only one outcome for every maxim, because a maxim cannot be a universal ...
... middle of paper ...
... a child cannot be made into a universal law, because if everyone acted on this maxim, then the human race would cease to exist. Not having a child is immoral, therefore having a child is moral.
Kant’s moral theory and utilitarianism are well thought out moral theories. There are similarities and differences between these two theories. Every action can be evaluated by these theories. The conclusions are different in many cases, but are also similar in other cases. The way each theory reaches a conclusion is extremely different. Kant’s moral theory seems to have only one conclusion for an action, and is relatively straight forward. Utilitarianism can have multiple conclusions for an action, therefore it can be difficult when coming to a conclusion. The theories are both strong, but not without flaws. It is hard to distinguish which theory is the right theory.
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
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.
This theory judges the morality of an action based on the actions adherence to a set of rules. It is explained as an action is morally right if it is required by duty, and should not conflict with any other action required by another duty. By doing our duty we do what is valuable, this theory focuses on the structure of moral judgment. One should act regardless of your own aims or self-interest. Kant formalism is based on deontology and are united and their opposition to purely oppose the consequentiality moral thinking; some even hold that a morally wrong may have entirely good consequences, and a morally right on entirely bad consequences (Frankena, 1973. 16). Kant’s formalism is straight forward, basically in simple terms; would you like it if someone did that to you? No? Then that action is morally wrong. According to Kant, some problems with consequentialism, he believes if we are incline to do what we feel is good trying to produce good consequences then this act is not morally responsible. People differ in what they feel are good consequences therefore we can never truly know and achieve agreement if this action is morally sound. Because Kant does not believe that ethics is based on a desire, need or emotions but is about what’s is right and doing one’s duty (Mizzoni, 2010.
What is utilitarianism? Through philosophy, John Stuart Mill aims to answer this question. He asserts that one’s actions must be right if the greatest number of individuals are pleased with the greatest good. The theory of utilitarianism is straightforward. One must always chose the action that will contribute to the greatest good. In any instance, one must chose the action that will promote the greatest good for the greatest number. This principle allows one to decipher any action that may be considered right or wrong. On the contrary, Immanuel Kant and Kwame Appiah challenge the method of utilitarianism as a means to determine which rights countries should enforce. Kant asserts that human rights are individual and universal, whereas Appiah focuses on cosmopolitanism.
Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons, regardless of their individual desires or partial interests.
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
Kant 's moral theory focuses on the intention of the action, rather than any consequence attached to such action. According to Kant, an individual 's will is what animates the individual 's body, while the duty is the obedience to a moral law. An individual 's will is considered to be strong when it is aligned with duty, even if the consequences harm that individual. For example, a student can fail a test instead of cheating since he or she believes that cheating is wrong. "You should not cheat" is an example of a maxim, a subjective principle that governs action. In order for a maxim to be morally right, it must be a categorical imperative, taken from an individual to a universal scale. In other words, is it rationally possible...
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,
Morality has been a subject of many philosophical discussions that has prompted varied responses from different philosophers. One of the most famous approaches to morality is that of Immanuel Kant in his writing Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals. Kant in this work argues that the reason for doing a particular action or the drive to do good things is a fundamental basis of defining moral quality in a person. To him, an action could be considered morally right only if the motivation behind doing that action was out of ‘goodwill’. When he defines these moral rules, he characterizes them in the form of imperatives – the hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. While hypothetical imperatives deal with motivations and actions that lead to a particular end, categorical imperatives are a product of rational behavior in human beings. Kant considers such categorical imperatives to be the moral basis for life.
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.
In Section One and Section Two of his work. Kant explores his position on his fundamental principle of morality, or his “categorical imperative”, or his idea that all actions are moral and “good” if they are performed as a duty. Such an idea is exemplified when he says, “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant 14). The philosopher uses examples such as suicide and helping others in distress to apply his principal to possible real life situation. Kant is successful in regards to both issues. As a result, it means that categorical imperative can plausibly be understood as the fundamental principle of all morality. Kant’s reasoning for his categorical imperative is written in a way that makes the theory out to be very plausible.
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
Utilitarianism is one of the best known and influential moral theories. There are two different meanings to two words but at times, they can be the same perspective. Utilitarianism is different from ethical theories it makes the rightness and wrongness of an act dependent to a person. The right thing can be done from a bad motivation. There are consequences including good or bad by the act. It is between an action and their happiness or unhappy outcomes depending on the circumstances. There is no moral principle only itself of utilitarianism. It balances the individuality and community of happiness. The purpose of the morality is by making life better and increasing that amount of good deed. “Another aspect of utilitarianism is the belief that
Basically, the humanity principle deals with how we treat and respect others. Through the humanity principle, Kant notes that it is acceptable to use people as a means to our own ends (helping get some of our wants and needs through the help of others), as long as we treat them as ends in themselves (treating them kindly and with respect). While Kant creates a strong view of ethics through the categorical imperative, he covers a very different prospect through the hypothetical