Kantianism Vs Utilitarianism

Most ethical theories are concerned with what is right or good, and they often attempt to find this by applying a rule or several rules that seem to fit with outcomes that we most commonly find are “good”. An ethical based individual moral objective would be to seek the action that has the most affectionate consequence, a utilitarianism person would argue for the greatest amount of happiness, a Kantianism’s rule would be to follow the categorical imperative, and maybe Natural law, we do what is in accordance with the purpose of what is believed to be morally correct. There are moral theories that consist of no rules, and that morality is simply expressed regarding feelings. Virtue ethics, accommodated by Aristotle, rejects many of these approaches
98) Kantianism moral principals was an objective to create ‘Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals’ (pg. 98) Kant believed that morality was acting out of duty. The moral duty exists because the action in itself is good, ethical and how it is ought to be rather than because it is useful. The moral principles of this theoretical system are intended for the higher good of individuals and its basic foundations consist of human virtues, ie. Compassion, care, togetherness, etc. Kant explained how morality is not the doctrine of how we make ourselves happy, but how we make ourselves worthy of obtaining happiness. This theory displays its alterations from utilitarianism which is made up of results on an action rather than the nature of the action
Virtue ethics theory states that morality comes from an individual’s character, rather not from rules or laws. There are individuals that seem to know the right thing to do, in the right way, at the right moment. These individuals are defined as virtuous, according to Aristotle. The actions that are performed by a virtuous individual would be acted in a moral manner since they will know what to do in any ethical state of affair.
Rule-based ethics are concerned with what people do, not with the consequences of their actions (do the right thing, do it because it’s the right thing to do, don’t do wrong things). Under this system of ethics, you can’t justify an action by showing that it produced good consequences which is why it’s sometimes called “no-consequentialist.” Individuals who follow rule-based ethics believed that the right thing should be performed in ethical situations, even if it produces more harm (or less good) than doing the wrong