Comparing Kant's Categorical Imperative And Utilitarianism
Bentham’s Utilitarianism vs. Kant’s Categorical Imperative
Introduction
In this critical response, I will consider if Bentham’s Utilitarianism is a better alternative to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and then I will argue that Utilitarianism is a good alternative to Kant’s Categorical Imperative as it is a more realistic view of human morals.
Background Explanation The two philosophers that this essay critically analyzes have very different views of human nature. The variation in their views is what separated their respective ethical viewpoints. Jeremy Bentham was pessimistic about humans and believed that individuals would only carry out actions that generate personal gain. Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, believed people were intrinsically …show more content…
When analyzing the reasoning behind the philosophical theories, the outcome of the theory seems to be the opposite of how the philosopher viewed human nature. Bentham believed that humans were inherently selfish so he created a system that forced individuals to think for the group rather than themselves. Kant believed that humans were inherently selfless so he created a mindset that suggests individuals preserve their “goodness” even if it resulted in people getting negatively …show more content…
Kant did not believe that any room for manipulation when it came to upholding the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative is very rigid in nature as it just looks at the actions that are taken when making a choice. The example of this flaw in the textbook was to break a promise in order to save a person’s life. Kant viewed this situation as having two parts: the binding promise that you have previously made, and the new situation that requires you to break the promise. The two parts present a new moral dilemma to the individual. Just looking at the actions that would need to be taken in each choice in the dilemma the individual would come to the conclusion that they would either have to continue with their plan of meeting their friend or breaking the promise. The action of breaking the promise is morally wrong so that choice is thrown out. Therefore, under Kant’s Categorical Imperative an individual would be obligated to withhold a promise over saving a person’s life (Schoedinger
Introduction
In this critical response, I will consider if Bentham’s Utilitarianism is a better alternative to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and then I will argue that Utilitarianism is a good alternative to Kant’s Categorical Imperative as it is a more realistic view of human morals.
Background Explanation The two philosophers that this essay critically analyzes have very different views of human nature. The variation in their views is what separated their respective ethical viewpoints. Jeremy Bentham was pessimistic about humans and believed that individuals would only carry out actions that generate personal gain. Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, believed people were intrinsically …show more content…
When analyzing the reasoning behind the philosophical theories, the outcome of the theory seems to be the opposite of how the philosopher viewed human nature. Bentham believed that humans were inherently selfish so he created a system that forced individuals to think for the group rather than themselves. Kant believed that humans were inherently selfless so he created a mindset that suggests individuals preserve their “goodness” even if it resulted in people getting negatively …show more content…
Kant did not believe that any room for manipulation when it came to upholding the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative is very rigid in nature as it just looks at the actions that are taken when making a choice. The example of this flaw in the textbook was to break a promise in order to save a person’s life. Kant viewed this situation as having two parts: the binding promise that you have previously made, and the new situation that requires you to break the promise. The two parts present a new moral dilemma to the individual. Just looking at the actions that would need to be taken in each choice in the dilemma the individual would come to the conclusion that they would either have to continue with their plan of meeting their friend or breaking the promise. The action of breaking the promise is morally wrong so that choice is thrown out. Therefore, under Kant’s Categorical Imperative an individual would be obligated to withhold a promise over saving a person’s life (Schoedinger