Kantianism Vs Utilitarianism Analysis

Subsequent to Aristotle ancient centered view of ethics, that had a focal point on virtue ethics, which defined ethics to a person’s character development, and to a broad picture of human life. Modern ethics emerged two-thousand years later. Modern ethics believes morality is based on the action a person takes rather than a person’s character. Overall, modern ethics gives us two “act base theories” the Kantianism and Utilitarianism, both define ethics in a form of action. In this paper I will be discussing the beliefs of Kantianism.
In the 18th century, Philosopher Immanuel Kant a proponent for Kantianism ethics opposed the utilitarianism theory. Kant’s deontological principal looks at the source of the action; if someone is acting on a good
will or acting on duty. It does not analyze the result, in other words the action if is right or wrong is not dependent on the consequences but whether they fulfill a duty. Kant’s ethics believes that one cannot control the outcome, therefore morality does not interpret the outcomes but interprets the reasons for the outcomes.
An example would be Money power, wealth.
It can be good, or bad and their worth applies in how the will or the intent of the action is applied. (audio, 2017)
Conclusively, how we decide to act, the will of one’s action must be analyze and rationalize, which determines everyone’s wills to act the same; it takes a universal view, if it cannot take a universal view, then the action cannot be performed.
Another aspect in evaluating an action has to do if a regard for human life is present within the intention of the action, and should not be used if it’s for one’s own benefit or personal gain disregarding the people as mere means. For Kant a regard for life and the moral ethics that follow is what makes us human.
Kant’s second version of ethics is the categorical imperative view, which is a rule or law of something, it determines what our moral duties are. To Kant an imperative is a command like, do not kill! Do not harm animals! Or Do not steal! And it makes it categorical because it is unconditional, so whether you want to do something, like steal, because it will benefit you, the action should still not take place because the law commands it. Therefore, one cannot opt out of the moral behavior because it applies to all; it does not depend on any end result that we are looking
for.
Kant’s two formulation of the categorial imperative is willing the maxim, is the principal or rule the one should act in.
It makes it universal; willing our maxim signifies that we are universalizing an action for all to do, it’s a rational duty. If the action is to murder a person that has offended you then should everyone then kill someone that offends them? The second type of formulation is similar to a universalization view, it is to treat human beings in the best regard possible and not as tools, property or to be dehumanized. Kant believed if these formulations are water down in any way and does not provide happiness for an individual or at least good health. Then, actions should be performed according to the law. Therefore, people will have to perform on duty because duty demands that the human life should be respected and valued. Resulting that the person’s conduct has a real moral worth, because out of duty one performs regardless of their personal interest or sentiment behind the
action.
In a universal aspect, this theory can be applied in times of war. Soldiers are to defend their country for the reason of duty. This theory can support the intent of their action without consequences, however, this also has a contradiction. Kantianism categorical imperative is to regard life, but in war soldiers are forced to kill in order to survive, thus to regard life is no longer is applied, but is a demand to protect the country or to foster ones’ end.
Other examples of real life situations, would be when people only help the needy if they have something to gain, which we see today in corporations that are funded by people who are expecting some type of support. Under the Kantianism law this moral act would violate the deontological principal and will not be considered an act of good will, regardless if the monetary donations benefits lives it would not matter because the source or reason of the act of good will is for selfish gain.
I believe that the Kantianism theory has several flaws and cannot stand to the perfect standard that the Kantianism theory expects. One of the flaws is that we cannot see a person’s true reason for their act of good will. The source of the action is a subjective thought and can be concealed. During the presidential campaigns, candidates are making promises, and expressing their interest for the country’s well-being and once one is selected they break promises claiming that in doing so will benefit the people better and accomplish other goals that are more suitable.