Similarities Between Kantianism And Utilitarianism

Ellen Kim

PHL 213-5

Professor Rockwell

Paper #3

In normative ethics, a multitude of theories constitute the understanding of morality in human action. This diverse spectrum of theories includes consequentialism, more specifically, utilitarianism, which is a consequence-based theory that was first developed by Jeremy Bentham and later broadened by John Stuart Mill, to Kantianism, or deontology, a duty-based theory developed by Immanuel Kant. The two ethical theories express a very obvious polarity in their moral discourses, but they also draw familiar parallels as they are both founded on scientific human investigation. This investigation shares some interactive ideas: to apply certain principles universally, to prioritize individual freedom

Bentham and Mill maneuver utilitarianism’s calculative and quantifiable characteristics on the established thought that human happiness, pleasure, pain, and suffering are synonymous with moral rightness and moral wrongness, all in accordance with scientific experience. The utilitarian’s moral theory is advanced on a subjective quality that the vast majority of animals share. Kant’s deontology finds this characteristic to be paramount in the development of ethical theory as the difference between man and animal is the human ability to reason, rationalize, and inherently possess moral fiber. By reducing human morality to this generalized, biological sensation of pleasure, the theory becomes contradictory to its own fundamental standards. While it is true that pleasure and happiness can be physically observed in humankind, the intrinsic dynamic of happiness in Person A, or Animal A, would be inexpressible for comparison and measurement to the happiness of Person B, or Animal

To make the universal imperative of utilitarianism’s Greatest Happiness Principle applicable, the given principle is rendered relevant to every individual who is capable of experiencing and differentiating pleasure from pain. In modern day, there is minimal justification for allowing children to pursue “maximum utility” for themselves as their cognitive abilities are still in development. In this case, if consequentialism were permitted, senseless children would defiantly surrender themselves to their desired pleasures, as their moral purpose would be self-defined and self-justified by their pursuit for utility. With the utilitarian principles already in motion, the children would need to seek the greater good, or happiness, for the majority, but the absence of a developed cognition, which would be utilized to distinguish the moral, advantageous happiness from immoral, extemporaneous happiness, is sufficient enough to wonder if a genesis of majority-approved, moral atrocities would emerge. Unlike the vague criteria of utility or pleasure in utilitarianism, deontology is constricting and blatant, but is composed of a guiding moral structure that is clear, succinct, and bears little flexibility, or misunderstanding, in its