Utilitarianism V. Kantianism

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. Immanuel Kant’s deonotological ethical theory assesses if actions are

moral based on the person’s will or intention of acting. Kant’s theory can be categorized as a

deonotological because “actions are not assessed to be morally permissible on the basis of

consequences they produce, but rather on the form of the agent’s will in acting,” (Dodds,

Lecture 7) therefore his actions are based on duty and not consequential. Kantianism is based

on three principles: maxims, willing, and the categorical imperative. Kant states that a maxim

is a ”general rule or principle which will explain what a person takes himself to be doing and

the circumstances in which he takes himself to be doing it” (Feldman, 1999, 201). It is

important that this principle be universalisable and that the maxim can be applied consistently

to everyone that encounters similar situations, therefore willed as a universal law. The second

aspect of Kant’s theory is willing. This involves the agent consistently committing oneself to

make an action occur. He states that, “In general, we can say that a person wills

inconsistently if he wills that p be the case and he wills that q be the case and its impossible

for p and q to be the case together” (Feldman, 1999, 203). The last aspect of Kant’s theory is

the categorical imperative. The importance of the categorical imperative is that one must act

in such a way that they can will that the maxim behind one’s actions can be conceived as part

of the universal law. The maxim has to be consistent and able to be applied to every situation,

for every person. The other main point of Kantian moral theories are the differences between

imperfect and perfect duties. Perfect duties are those duties that one must always perform in a

particular situation, whereas imperfect duties are those that one must perform only when the

situation arises.

Utilitarianism is another theory in which its main objective is to explain the nature of ethics

and morality. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which is based upon utility, or doing that

which produces the greatest happiness. According to a utilitarian the morality of act is found

just if the consequence produces the greatest overall utility for everyone. However, if the

greatest possible utility is not produced, the action is then morally wrong. This view says that

a person should act as to produce the greatest overall happiness and pleasure for everyone

who may be directly or indirectly affected by the action. Therefore, a utilitarian would require

that for every action the corresponding consequences for every action should be thoroughly

weighed and alternatives proposed before deciding whether or not to perform such an action.

Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are similar in the respect that they both attempt to

explain how one can go about acting ethically, however they differ in areas of measuring

morality and their usage of rules. Both Kant and Mills measure morality in different ways.

Kantianism says that an act is deemed moral for two reasons: if it done for the sake of duty

and if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. If one completes an action based on their

duty to perform, they do the right thing because it is what they feel they ought to do as their

duty. Therefore, this act would be considered morally just. Utilitarianism, on the other hand,

would only see the act as morally permissible if the consequences of that action produce

maximum utility and happiness for all involved. The two theories also differ in the ways in

which rules are applied. Kantian moral theory values the universal law and maxims as its

guide for how people should act in a given situation. Maxims “describe some general sort of

situation, and then propose some form of action for the situation. To adopt a maxim is to

commit yourself to acting in the described way whenever the situation in question arises.”

(Feldman, 1999, 202) Maxims are also used consistently throughout and therefore are a

valued guide because they apply universally. For example, Kant made a moral rule for lying

which says that if one person can make a lying-promise, then it should be said that everyone

can do the same and therefore it being a universal law trust would be self-defeating. By

saying that it is not a perfect duty to lie, the universal law or rule, states that no one can under

any circumstance can lie. Kant has also developed similar moral rules for rusting of talents,

helping others in distress, and suicide. Kantianism can therefore be seen as a rational and

logical theory in which decisions can be made. In comparison, Utilitarianism has no universal

set of rules on to which morality is based; therefore they judge each situation individually.

Because of this, in weighing consequences to determine if an action will maximize utility this

can become a lengthy, time-consuming process. Not to mention the fact that you will never

clearly know if your decision will in effect truly promote the most utility. In assessing the

two moral theories, I believe that Kantianism provides a more plausible account of ethics

even though from the outside it seems as though Utilitarianism would be the more ethical

theory because it looks to maximize utility.

Utilitarianism refers to moral theories which maintain that an action is morally right if the

consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable. Therefore, correct moral

conduct is determined solely by analyzing an action's consequences. Utilitarianism requires

that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action; we then determine

whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good

consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are

greater, then the action is morally improper. It seems as though this process is more

subjective and can not be universally applied whereas Kantianism can be. Also, one’s person

determination of what produces the greatest utility may not be consistent with another

person’s, therefore this theory is inconsistent and a universal law cannot be applied from it.

Kantianism is by far more consistent of a theory and can be universally applied to all beings.

It is more plausible because even if the consequences of performing an action aren’t

necessarily the best, the agent is still obligated to perform the action because it is there duty

to do so. Therefore, ethically and morally they are doing the right thing. In conclusion, this

paper has discussed two main theories regarding the ethical behavior of human beings.

Kantianism is a theory based on duties, maxims, willing and the categorical imperative.

Utilitarianism is based on the concept that we ought to do whatever produce the greatest

overall utility and this will be the morally right action. Both theories, although similar in

some ways, possess clear differences. 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.

Bibliography

Susan Dodds, Lecture 2 notes, ‘Utilitarianism.’ Susan Dodds, Lecture 7 notes, ‘Kantianism.’ Fred Feldman, ‘Kant’s Ethics Theory: Exposition and Critique’ from H. J. Curzer, ed Ethical Theory and Moral Problems, Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1999. J.S. Mill, ‘What Utilitarianism Is’ from Peter Y. Windt, An Introduction to Philosophy: Ideas in Conflict, St Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1982.

Word Count: 1291