Kantianism Vs Utilitarianism
Kantianism is a non-consequentialist theory introduced by a German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Kantianism refer to the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty. In this theory, Kant stressed on the role of moral sentiment and desire for moral commitment and motivation. Kant argued that morality and rationality coincided. To be moral is to be rational, to be immoral is to be irrational. Kant believed that there were some rules of morality that all humans had to follow; moreover, he believed that any rational being in the universe would have to follow these rules. According to Kant, actions ought to be done due to the reason alone, not utility.
There is another view Kant holds …show more content…
There are two categorical imperatives. The first categorical imperative stated that act according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. A maxim is the rule or principle on which you act. For example, I might make it my maxim to give at least as much to charity each year as I spend on eating out, or I might make it my maxim only to do what will benefit some member of my family. The command states, crudely, that you are not allowed to do anything yourself that you would not be willing to allow everyone else to do as well. You are not allowed to make exceptions for yourself. For example, if you expect other people to keep their promises, then you are obligated to keep your own promises. More accurately, it commands that every maxim you act on must be such that you are willing to make it the case that everyone always act on that maxim when in a similar situation. For example, if I wanted to lie to get something I wanted, I would have to be willing to make it the case that everyone always lied to get what they wanted - but if this were to happen no one would ever believe you, so the lie would not work and you would not get what you wanted. So, if you willed that such a maxim (of lying) should become a universal law, then you would thwart your goal - thus, it is impermissible to lie, according to the
There is another view Kant holds …show more content…
There are two categorical imperatives. The first categorical imperative stated that act according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. A maxim is the rule or principle on which you act. For example, I might make it my maxim to give at least as much to charity each year as I spend on eating out, or I might make it my maxim only to do what will benefit some member of my family. The command states, crudely, that you are not allowed to do anything yourself that you would not be willing to allow everyone else to do as well. You are not allowed to make exceptions for yourself. For example, if you expect other people to keep their promises, then you are obligated to keep your own promises. More accurately, it commands that every maxim you act on must be such that you are willing to make it the case that everyone always act on that maxim when in a similar situation. For example, if I wanted to lie to get something I wanted, I would have to be willing to make it the case that everyone always lied to get what they wanted - but if this were to happen no one would ever believe you, so the lie would not work and you would not get what you wanted. So, if you willed that such a maxim (of lying) should become a universal law, then you would thwart your goal - thus, it is impermissible to lie, according to the