Difference Between Kantian And Utilitarianism

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.

The ethical teachings and values of utilitarianism and Christian ethics are similar in some aspects, yet however are diverse in others. Utilitarianism is a generally teleological ethical system, where the outcome is said to justify the act. The act is considered ‘good’ if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. Christian Ethics, however, can be quite different. Many aspects of its ethics are deontological, for example, the Decalogue and Natural Law. There are other differences and indeed some similarities which will be considered throughout this essay.

Case one proclaims that the American economy is failing millions of Americans. In today’s day in age, having a full time job does not guarantee an income above the poverty line. Currently, there are “80 government assistance programs” which provide working families the means to survive. It is important to note that these programs cost $153 billion annually, and these costs are covered by the government from the tax revenue they receive from hard working Americans (Myers). Businesses, like Walmart and McDonalds, pay full time employees so little that they live under the poverty line. Businesses can do this is because the government bails them out in the form of the assistance programs provided for their employees, which would be unnecessary if fair wages were paid to their employees. The case questions whether it is moral for well-established corporations to prosper at the expense of the government subsidizing their drastically underpaid employees. In this essay, I will analyze this dilemma through the lens of Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.

     Ethics is one part of philosophy that will always be studied, and like most subjects in philosophy, will never be viewed the same by everyone. There are so many cultures that have so many different beliefs about the way a person's life should be lived out. Things like religion, poverty, and mental health all contribute to our beliefs in ethics. Some people believe that the mental state of a person or the motive for that person committing a crime should be factors when sentencing time comes. Others think that no matter the situation, a crime is a crime, and no compassion should be felt for the guilty. In the studies of philosophy these beliefs are put into two categories:

If you had the option to choose, would you rather live in a society where you are treated as a rational being or a world where your contentment in life could all be taken away as a means of contributing to someone else’s happiness. When reflecting upon ethics and the many different theories, it is no question that Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham come to mind. After all, two of the most pronounced ethical theories are Kantianism and Utilitarianism. These two principles are extremely important and have had endless impacts on ethics and the world as a whole. These philosophers, Kant and Bentham, worked to study moral nature and developed theories based on moral philosophy. Although they are quite contrasting,

It is clear from the case study that Alistair knows the contract is unorthodox. The problem he faces is whether he should overlook the bribe or report it to the board. The board of directors expects Alistair to tell the truth and report the bribe because of: his position as Chief Legal Officer, the board has a very strong ethics policy and they are wary of unethical activities.

Morality is a complicated matter, one which requires rationality, but is often driven by emotions. A person’s behavior is almost completely driven by emotions and often times emotions are what tell us when something might be wrong or right. Motivation also comes from emotions, so without feelings of anger, depression, frustration and the like we would hardly ever do anything in order to change things in our lives (Shafer-Landau, 2015, p. 258). Virtue ethics then is concerned with what makes a person virtuous versus vicious when it comes to making moral decisions, with emotions playing an important role. In this paper, I support Aristotle’s emphasis on emotions as a key to being virtuous, especially since emotions tell us what is important and motivate us to act (Shafer-Landau, 2015, p. 257-258).

Morality is a complex subject and ethical dilemmas yield differing opinions and theories that have manifested through time by intelligent philosophers. There were two influential philosophers’ names Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant, who formed differing theories, in an attempt to set a uniform approach to ethical dilemmas and morality. Bentham was a firm supporter of Utilitarian theory; which focuses on overall happiness and consequences of an action (EMP 122). While Kant believed in his own theory that moral rules are absolute (EMP 129). Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics have few strengths and notable weaknesses, thus proving both theories implausible when compared to

Both Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus (Act Utilitarianism) and Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative provides people with a moral structure, from which to make moral decisions. However, both of them have benefits and flaws, and thus – as they contradict each other in many ways – it is difficult to decide which is the most suitable with regards to the dilemma of Jim and the Indians. To allow one to decide, it is crucial to foremost comprehend the fundamental principles involved in each and to then compare the pros and cons each offer.

A man ends up in a South American town in front of a group of 20 inhabitants who had protested against the government and were about to be killed as punishment and to serve as warning. Understanding that the man, Jim, had ended up in the town by accident, they decide to honor him as a visitor and give him the privilege of killing one of the Indians. As a result, the other 19 will be set free. The utilitarian response to this is that Jim should kill the one man. The utilitarian must again forget his integrity and act for the greater good. Although his best benefit may be to not kill one man, he must consider the complete picture; he is saving the lives of 19 people.

In my opinion I think Kantian Ethics is better than utilitarianism. Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism are the two major theories in ethics. They are extremely different from one another. They both have have their “strengths” and “weaknesses”. Overall Kant makes more sense to me than utilitarianism. There are three main reasons I find Utilitarianism a flawed theory. Before I state my reasons it is important to know what Utilitarianism is first. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that states that we should do the act that conducts the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. According to Utilitarianism, happiness is an intrinsic value. In other words, happiness in itself has value.

The example of the sinking ship and Holmes’ decision to throw people off of the lifeboat represents an Act Utilitarian belief. Holmes’ decision making process can be seen as morally right when one assesses the amount of pleasure and pain that can be expected from his actions. The lifeboat is the only method of getting to shore, and the less people that are in it the better the chance they all have of surviving since it will be less likely that the lifeboat will capsize. The boat holds fourteen people, so it is best to take exactly

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

1. The idea of neutrality, from utilitarianism (as Christians explains it), could be related to the key concept of autonomy as it is understood in professional journalism?

In this essay, I will be discussing an article about a woman who starved her two horses. I will address the issue about whether or not the woman’s action was ethical. I will use the two ethical theories of utilitarianism and Kantian ethics to support my argument. I will also suggest a different course of action the woman could have taken to be justified, through both ethical theories.