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