KANTIANISM AS THE TRUE ACCOUNT OF MORALITY

1446 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Utilitarianism versus kantian ethics

In this paper, I will argue that Kantianism, not utilitarianism, is the true account of morality. Utilitarianism is based on measuring happiness, but this is not something that can be objectively quantified. It is also a theory that bases the morality of an action on its future consequences, which cannot be accurately predicted. Lastly, a society governed by Kantianism would, possibly, produce greater total happiness than a society governed by utilitarianism.
However, before I get into those points, I will first start by introducing and describing a modified version of the "murderer at the door" thought experiment.
Say I am living in Germany back in the early 1940s, during World War II. A Nazi shows up at my front door, asking me whether or not I am hiding any Jews in my house. It turns out that I actually am hiding Jews in my house, and I have the following two options: I can lie to the Nazi, or I can tell them the truth. Intuitively, the best thing to do would be to lie to the Nazi, and a utilitarian would argue that lying is indeed the moral thing to do in this situation.
According to John Stuart Mill, the greatest good is happiness, where an action is good if it promotes happiness, and bad if it promotes unhappiness [REF]. The right action, then, is the one that produces the greatest overall happiness for everyone - humans and non-humans. In other words, the overall benefits of commiting the action must outweigh the overall consequences. If I tell the truth to the Nazi, there is a high chance that the Jews will be murdered. If I lie to the Nazi, there is a good chance the Jews in my house will continue to live. In this scenario, Mill would argue that telling the truth would produce a larger amount of unhappiness, whereas l...

... middle of paper ...

...knocking on the door. In fact, they wouldn't have even existed, because they would recognize that the maxim of killing could not be universally willed, and would see no point in doing so. There would be no issues with crime, discrimination, or poverty because each human being would be seen and treated as an ends in themselves. Individuals would also be encouraged towards fulfilling imperfect duties (developing their talents, helping others in need), resulting in a greater overall benefit to the world. In this way, it's possible that a greater amount of happiness is produced in a Kantian society, which is really what the utilitarian society aspires towards.
Even if these situations are merely hypothetical, the true account of morality should be applicable to the scenario where every individual acted in a certain manner, whether that be as a Kantian or a utilitarian.

Show More
Related

  • Utilitarian's Ethic and Politics: What is the Purpose of Human Life?

    1654 Words  | 4 Pages

    On the other hand is also true that Utilitarianism may authorize the worst actions if it's still safeguard the welfare of individuals. Moreover it ends to ignore the identity of the individuals involved , their personal needs and the fact that among them there are differences.7

    Read More

  • Bernard Williams's Critique Of Kantian Moral Theory

    1104 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.

    Read More

  • Mill’s Objection to Kant’s Moral Theory

    1356 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...d in the discussion of promise keeping and beneficence, identifiable logical or practical contradictions arise when attempting to universalize morally impermissible maxims (according to the CI). Mill argues that the CI only shows “that the consequences of [the maxims] universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.” This is erroneous for there is no such “choice” available. The logical and practical contradictions that Mill fails to recognize produce an outcome (rejection of the maxim) necessitated by rationality and a free will. It is not that the consequences are unpleasant, but that their production is irrational.

    Read More

  • Categorical Imperatives Good Will Analysis

    798 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the previous mentioned dilemma, in order to save lives, murder must be committed. What ever that person decides to do will contradict the person’s desire to do a good deed. Despite his actions being pure his will to do good was not met, which is not a good thing. In the term of the law of universals, you must do act according to maxims that could become universal laws. You cannot commit murder, because you wouldn’t want murder to become a universal law. It would be immoral for everyone to go around murdering others; life would be worthless and invaluable. You also cannot save the live of those in need of saving. If everyone disregarded the need for saving others, such as fireman, police, paramedics, then life would also lose its value, because someone’s life is no longer worthy enough to be saved. Good will cannot be unconditionally good if it violates Kant’s own law of

    Read More

  • Grounding For The Metaphysics Of Morals, By Immanuel Kant

    1044 Words  | 3 Pages

    Immanuel Kant is steadfast in his belief that before anyone can do anything absolutely moral, they must reason what would occur if every person on Earth did this exact thing, or as he puts it, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 30). This philosophy seems sound, but is actually inherently flawed, as when it comes into conflict with his opinions on lying, it makes both points to be somewhat impossible to live by. It also does not account for different people operating in different situations all over the world, instead opting for some sort of absolute, infallible morality. This casts ethics in a disturbingly black and white

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism

    715 Words  | 2 Pages

    In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,

    Read More

  • Analysis of Immanuel Kant´s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

    926 Words  | 2 Pages

    Overall Kant’s concepts of ‘The Good Will’ and ‘The Categorical Imperative’ can be applied to any situation. His ideas of moral law, good will, duty, maxims, and universal law all intertwine to support his belief. As a whole his concept enables the Kingdom of Ends, which is the desired result of the morality of humanity. Everyone is to treat everyone based upon true good will actions instead of personal gains, this way no one gets used. In all Kant trusts if this is achieved there will be universal peace across humanity.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Stuart Mill

    1161 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.

    Read More

  • My Moral Code vs. Moral Theory

    795 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism vs. Kantianism

    1353 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • Arguments Against Utilitarianism

    1464 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Kant vs. Mill: Human Rights and Utilitarianism

    1725 Words  | 4 Pages

    It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rights theory, according to Kant. He believes that moral principles are universal, and that all rational human beings are expected to conform to moral reasoning. Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals.... ... middle of paper ... ...

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Ethical Egoism And Utilitarianism

    1135 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • A Lie To Save A Life

    1074 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Differences Between Utilitarianism And Hedonism

    1628 Words  | 4 Pages

    A moral theory should be one’s guide when deciding whether an action is either good or bad, wrong or right. There are many types of moral theories to choose from, but we will only focus on two: utilitarianism and ancient hedonism. These theories meet in their pursuit of something greater, for hedonism it’s personal pleasure while for utilitarianism it is happiness for the greater number of people. In this work, the differences and the similarities of utilitarianism and hedonism will be pointed out after explaining them separately.

    Read More

More about KANTIANISM AS THE TRUE ACCOUNT OF MORALITY

Open Document