Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are two of the most popular and most subscribed to philosophies in the modern western world. These philosophies are both demanding in their own respects. They both demand very different things of the individual and there is no way to clearly say which is more demanding. Thus, both philosophies are equally demanding, but focus on different aspects of life. This means to a certain individual one could appeal greatly over the other because of how that individual’s life is structured. The two major demands of these philosophies are, forcing you to constantly evaluate different aspects of life, and making you be an impartial person as well as require you to throw out any self-morals, self-ties, or self-projects …show more content…
Kant makes you evaluate yourself constantly to make sure you are acting out of duty, while Utilitarianism makes you constantly evaluate the outcomes of events before you act on them. This idea of evaluating outcomes to make decisions comes from the principle of utility in Utilitarianism, otherwise known as the Greatest Happiness Principal. A great example of how this principle of utility is used in Utilitarianism is as follows, “When we’re choosing between alternative courses of action or policies, we should choose the one that promotes the most overall happiness and minimizes overall pain.” (Handout 9, The Principal of Utility). The primary objective in Utilitarianism is to act in accordance with the principle of utility always. To follow in accordance with this principal one must be constantly be evaluating his/her environment. Once a split in the environment occurs (when a time for a decision occurs) one must look into the future, reflect on past experiences, and be fully aware of the present to decide which decision will be in accordance with the Greatest Happiness Principal. This process must be completely unbiased to the individuals involved. All sentient beings should be considered in this decision. This idea of …show more content…
They both call on the individual to constantly evaluate some aspect of their own life, weather that be evaluating the “rightness” of your actions or evaluating the consequences of your actions. They are complete opposites when it comes to moral philosophies, but when it comes to looking at the demands of both one cannot significantly pull ahead of the other. There is always some counter argument or statement that can show how the demands of both cancel out. They are both demanding in their own respects and one cannot be placed over each other because of these
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 thought and theory are based on the “Greatest Happiness Principle” which exclaims that actions are considered moral only when they promote universal happiness and the absence of pain. In this paper, I argue that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is superior to utilitarianism because Kant’s Categorical Imperative allows for actions to be judged case by case, as opposed of what’s considered to be the best for maximizing happiness.
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
The ethical theory of utilitarianism has one basis, one must chose the action that will contribute to the greatest good; the greatest good for the greatest number. In any instance one may ask, which action will make the most people happy and how long? As a method
The word Contrast means comparing in order to show unlikeness or differences. Though this paper we will see the differences between the utilitarian theory and the virtue theory. According to Boylan (2009), “ethics is the science concerning the right and wrong of human behavior.” It is a method that allows us to organize our values and go after them. It helps us answer questions like: do I seek my own happiness, or do I sacrifice myself for a greater cause. Virtue ethics focuses on how to be; studies what makes the character traits of people. A person who has these traits will act by habit in certain ways not because of its consequences but because it is what a virtuous person would do.
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
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...
Consequentialism sets out to prove that one’s actions are morally right just because they produce the greatest amount of possibly goodness in the world. Consequentialism has two forms; one being act-utilitarianism, and the second one being rule-utilitarianism. In this paper I will explain the difference between the two forms, and will also apply these two forms to the same given scenario, and describe how the act-utilitarian will select the male patient, while the rule-utilitarian will select the female patient.
There are many essays, papers and books written on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers have theorized about moral actions for eons, one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism he tries to improve on the theories of utilitarianism from previous philosophers, as he is a strong believer himself in the theory. In Mill's book he presents the ideology that there is another branch on the utilitarian tree. This branch being called rule-utilitarianism. Mill makes a distinction between two different types of utilitarianism; act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seems like a major advance over the simple theory of act-utilitarianism. But for all its added complexity, it may not actually be a significant improvement. This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill.
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
Are either of these approaches an adequate version of the ethical theory? Should we be positive utilitarians or negative, or neither?
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
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