Kantianism vs Utilitarianism. Those who are not students of philosophy, words like utilitarianism and Kantianism may sound alien, but for those who try to tackle questions of ethics and wisdom, these two represent important viewpoints. There are many similarities between utilitarianism and Kantianism that confuse some people.
However, there are important differences between the two philosophies that will be outlined in this article. This is a philosophy that believes that consequences of an action are responsible for people judging that action as morally right or wrong. Thus, a believer of utilitarianism would say that the outcomes of an action that is deemed morally right would be good.
But a supporter of Kant would say no:. This scenario explains why I would support Kant over Mill. At worst, a world where people follow the categorical imperative is one where people are too principled and afraid to make exceptions to rules even when these exceptions might do good for society.
Sometimes this lack of flexibility may cause people pain, and that is unfortunate. In a utilitarian world, one is always subject to being evaluated on how much happiness they produce, and anything that you have, at any time, even your life itself can and should be sacrificed for the greatest total happiness.
Any sort of selfishness or favoritism ever is immoral, even if that means buying my mother a nice present instead of donating the money for that gift to charity, or just acquiring nice things of any kind, or simply living near people that need organs and happen to be better people at producing happiness.
I think even worse though, is not just what Mill would define as immoral, but what he would define as moral—anything that promotes happiness more than it promotes suffering. If someone would like your dinner more than you would, they can and should steal it. These are bullets I would not bite. In a paper of this length, I would find it quite challenging to examine and even problematize the issue of my own views of morality.
I wish I had the chance to examine them and explain to the reader why I hold these views, and why I see that these views are correct, but unfortunately this issue is out of the scope of this paper.
I have no choice to rely on what I already believe to be moral, which may seem intellectually lazy, but I would say it is more intellectually inexpedient. This is the theory that morally praises actions if they are only motivated by duty. I have added some details to make it so that a utilitarian is forced into one of the options, rather than really being able to choose both and fit them to utilitarianism. Advanced features of this website require that you enable JavaScript in your browser.
Thank you! Universalize the principle. Test whether it can hold as a natural, universal law. Take the making of false promises for our own gain as an example: The principle is that we can make false promises for our own gain.
Everybody always makes false promises for their own gain. There is a contradiction in this universalization because, if everybody always made promises for their own gain, then nobody would make promises. The idea that nobody makes promises contradicts with 2 since 2 stipulates that everybody is making promises. Nobody will ever help others. There is no problem with the existence of this law in terms of literal possibility, but this world would be an extremely unforgiving, inhumane place to live.
Furthermore, nobody would help me if I were in need, and I therefore would not be able to will that my principle become universal law. Now, I will perform the Kant test as well on this scenario: The principle is that someone may steal from the rich to give to the poor.
Everybody always steals from the rich to give to the poor. This is a contradiction with 2 since 2 requires that there be rich people to steal from and poor people to give to.
Read More. Thus, this is the fundamental difference between Kantianism and Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism vs. Utilitarianism Vs. Kantianism is postulated by Immanuel Kant while Utilitarianism is postulated by … His main idea in Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals is that an act is in accord with duty and therefore morally permissible if it follows the cate Although utilitarianism has a larger scope than Kantianism, it is a more timely process.
Act utilitarianism takes the position that utilitarianism is meant to be normative ethics. The theory says that people choose actions that help in maximizing happiness and at the same time remove misery, pain and agony.
Kantianism Versus Utilitarianism; Kantianism versus Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory originally established by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill that advocates brining about good consequences or happiness to all concerned. Although utilitarianism could use some work, the basic principles of the theory are much more practical to apply to the real world compared to kantianism.
Kantianism is the ethical theory put forward by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. However, the two theories derive the rules in different ways. Walden phd dissertations essay on litmus paper. This makes morality relative, not absolute. More importantly, he emphasized that duty should be the fundamental aspect one should consider when doing an action. Kant postulated this theory to give ethical guidelines to people when making ethical decisions or actions.
The term Kantianism or Kantian is sometimes also used to describe contemporary positions in philosophy of mind, epistemology, and ethics Ethics. Utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals. Rule Utilitarianism addresses problems that arise when otherwise morally undesirable actions might produce good consequences. Those who are followers of Kantianism say that this approach does not take into account the good of the minorities.
Kantianism, as explained by Immanuel Kant, and Utilitarianism, as explained by John Stuart Mill, represent two different theories for how people ought to act. Kant is primarily concerned with duty. More specifically, the only effects of actions that are relevant are the good and bad results that they produce. However, these two diverge in their focus. Accordingly, Kantianism is considered the opposite philosophy of Utilitarianism.
However, under utilitarianism, lying is OK if it brings pleasure and happiness to most of the people. Utilitarianism would have us act so as to be beneficial or least harmful to the sum of others.
Kantianism respects human rights and law of equality. Dodds, Lecture 2 Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. Utilitarianism vs Kantianism — moral … Argumentative essay on social welfare Essayer en anglais au preterit. Club a dinosaur. Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism Words 7 Pages.
Utilitarianism determines whether a proposed moral rule is acceptable by considering the long-term, overall total change in happiness that would result if everyone always followed the rule.
Our next stop in our tour of the ethical lay of the land is utilitarianism. Vleeschauwer, Herman Jean de. Utilitarianism states that what makes an action right is that it produces the greatest amount of happiness not just your happiness, but others as well. Unlike Utilitarianism, Kant's ethical system represents a universal categorical imperative rule of ethics.
Utilitarianism is concerned with the consequences of actions, whereas it is the motivating intentions that are important to Kant's moral system. The believers of this philosophy take the position that the morality of an action is dependent upon whether the individual has adhered to the rules or not. Euthanasia denotes any action that terminates the life of an individual in intense and debilitating medical state. However, these two philosophies take on different standpoints on ethics.
Kantianism is based upon moral imperatives which are absolute. Kantianism is another famous rule of the nonconsequentialist theory. Order custom writing paper now!
Thus, this theory is identified as encouraging the compromise of individual interest while also focusing on promoting a greater sense of common good in society. Rule Utilitarianism and Decision Theory. The principle of utility in rule-utilitarianism is to follow those rules which will result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Whatever makes you happy 1. Consequentialism may lead bad action to good consequences. Kant discusses that the mentioned human reason should be devoid of the influence of desires or emotions. Kantianism determines whether a proposed moral rule is acceptable by evaluating it according to the Categorical Imperative.
Utilitarianism is an ethical system that proposes that the greatest useful goodness for the greatest number of people and Kantianism suggests that the morally correct action is an absolute, unconditional requirement that allows no exceptions, and is both required and justified as an end in itself, not as a means to some other end. In contrast, rule utilitarianism can fully recognize the moral validity of these rights and obligations precisely because of its commitment to an overall moral strategy, independent of action-by-action social-utility maximization.
Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms. And that an act is justified if the end result is happiness for all. January 26 GMT 1. If deontology and rule utilitarianism have some overlap in what rules there are, they're still not the same because it matters why you're supposed to follow the rules. Utilitarianism rule or otherwise is about the consequences. Rule-utilitarianism is a reaction to that objection. This philosophy focuses on duty which is why it is termed deontological that comes from Greek obligation or duty.
0コメント