Difference Between Act Utilitarianism And Kantianism

In clinical trials, it is common to randomize whether participants receive the drug being tested or placebo pills so that they do not know which they are receiving, in order to make sure the results are not skewed by their knowledge. In this specific situation, the not-yet certified treatment is life saving. This paper will use Act Utilitarianism and Kantianism to evaluate the situation, discuss which moral theory arrives at the correct conclusion, and determine if the conclusion is reached via the correct reasoning.
First, I will describe Act Utilitarianism (AU), and then use it to evaluate the clinical trials. Act Utilitarianism states “[a]n action is permissible if and only if it maximizes the overall amount of individual well-being in the
Kant’s moral philosophy states that an action is right or wrong based on the motive behind it regardless of the consequences. It also states that immoral actions are irrational, and humans as rational, autonomous agents are intrinsically valuable and should not act irrationally. Kant also defines will as “the faculty of choice”(lecture notes). A good will is one that is motivated by duty. These wills are governed by maxims, which are principles that dictate how one should act in a situation. There are specific maxims are what Kant refers to as categorical imperatives, which means that they apply to everyone regardless of their goals. These are that you should not treat yourself as an exception and not use others as a mere means. To use someone as a mere means is to use them to help achieve your own goals without regard to theirs. However, treating someone as a means, which is simply using someone to achieve your goals, is acceptable. These ideas combined say that people have a duty to treat others justly, which means not treating them as mere means. Going further, this means that duties of justice, not using people as a mere means, always take priority over duties of beneficence, helping people reach their goals. With all these aspects of Kantianism, I will now evaluate the clinical
Although there is not the problem of knowledge of the consequences as sometimes occurs with AU, there is potential for the problem of knowledge of motive. Not everyone that produces drugs that heal people do so for the right reasons; the pharmaceutical business can be very profitable, and for some the well-being the drug produces is an afterthought. Additionally, Kantianism would allow for these trials to be always permissible if they were done on humans with severe cognitive disabilities, because they are not considered rational autonomous agents. Even when Kantianism gives the right answer, it sometimes does so for the wrong reason, as being able to do clinical trials on those with disabilities but not those without is extremely discriminatory. One way to revise Kantianism so that the first assumption discussed previously generates the right moral answer is that duties of beneficence could take priority over duties of justice in severe circumstances. The cost of this revision would be that in severe situations, such as this potentially life or death situation, some people would have to take a risk for the greater good. However, this would most likely be a maxim that rational autonomous agents could agree with, as many people are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others in extreme situations. Most people