Compare And Contrast Kant Vs. Utilitarianism

Kant v.s. Utilitarianism

From walking out of your local grocery store back to your car, after buying as much food as your last paycheck can purchase, a beggar stops you. They are wearing the most ragged clothes you have ever seen and you doubt they provide any sort of warmth in the harsh February weather in New England. They ask, “Do you have any spare change?” knowing that you just bought some items and potentially paid with cash and received coins in return or just happen to have literal spare change. You fumble with your words attempting to come up with a reasonable response; how could you even respond to them? On one hand, a Kantian would respond with the truth, “Of course!”, while a Utilitarian would respond with a quick, “Nope, sorry,”.

We are punished for lying, with the consequence growing as we did. You are taught what is right and what is wrong, with little to no grey area for debate. This is the way that Kant views society and what he agrees with. Immanuel Kant was a big believer that lying does no good and that we should not act towards the greater good. In terms of the beggar, Kant would very much be in favor of giving the beggar money. Lying as to whether or not you had spare change would go against Kant’s way of thinking. However, there may be an issue if they do ask word for word “Do you have any spare change?” and you honestly do not have any spare change, then you could honestly say “No, I am sorry. I do not.” Another part of Kant’s way of thinking is a type of maxim called universalism. Universalism states that we should act only if we think that everyone everywhere in the world should be doing it as well. Therefore, if we believe that it would be alright for everyone in the world to give a couple of dollars to all of the beggars everywhere, then we should give them money. If we were to give all beggars everywhere a couple of dollars, and we assumed they spent it on necessary items such as a meal or medicine for a disease, then in theory the world would be a lot less inhabited by beggars or homeless people. In 2005, United Nations estimated that there were 100 million homeless people worldwide compared to the 7.124 billion

Utilitarians focus on the greater good. They believe it is perfectly moral for someone completely innocent to suffer as long as the rest of society is happier than happy. In the story of “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas", for example, they live in a perfect world called Omelas. Everyone is joyous, there is no war, no disease, and a plethora of luxury items. However, in order for the amazing place of Omelas to continue to exist and thrive, a small and innocent child must live in a broom closet where it is underfed and under-loved. Those who live in Omelas, once they are old enough, must go visit the child. They learn of how their happiness only occurs because this poor naked child suffers. The child “can remember sunlight and its mother’s voice” and it’s life must be sacrificed for the greater good of the rest of the society (LeGuin, page 5). Utilitarians would not be in favor of giving the beggar standing outside of your local grocery store money. If you were to give away your money, then you too would be suffering. Should you not give away any money because you need to go purchase insulin for your diabetic child or dinner for your family of 6, in the eyes of a Utilitarian, that would be perfectly acceptable because you were acting towards the greater good for the most amount of people. The beggar is allowed to