Kantianism Vs Utilitarianism Essay

Kantianism and utilitarianism are two of the most popular ethical principals. Both determine how people ought to act in accordance with their actions to other people’s affectedness. Kantianism, discovered by Immanuel Kant, focuses on what is morally good. He comes up with the theory that the only good that is actually undeniably good is good will; everything else is only used to achieve an immoral end. For example, loyalty is not good in hindsight, if one is being loyal to someone that is evil. Although loyalty is seen as a “good” virtue, it can be used for immoral reasons. Good will, however, is always good and will always maintain moral value no matter what.
Kantianism also focuses on an individual’s duty to do good. The consequences of an act are irrelevant, however everyone has a duty to do good and be good. However, Kant argues that the only moral worth in an act is when the act is performed outside of duty, not because the individual feels like they need to perform a good act because it is their duty, but rather because they want to and they feel, know and truly

Bentham and Mill were two theorists who discovered/expanded on the theory of utilitarianism, by focusing on the quality and quantity of pleasure with rules. Utilitarianism is based on consequence; it is believed that the consequences of an action decide whether or not the action is right or wrong. For example, it does not matter whether the action itself is right or wrong, but rather the consequence surrounding it. That being said, if you see a person drowning, the “right” thing to do would be to save the person. However, if that person was saved and then murdered someone else, the consequence of saving that person’s life, led to the murder of someone else, which makes the consequence bad and therefore, the action bad. Utilitarianism always focuses on what is the greatest good for the majority, not the