Kantianism Vs Utilitarianism Essay

Philosophy 0500 WRIT: Moral Philosophy
Fall, 2016
Paper 3
140072139
Word Count: 1289
Is the outcome of our acts more important than the act itself?
Mill’s utilitarianism and Kantianism sit in opposition to each other. Utilitarianism advocates for the judgment of actions based on the happiness they create and advocate for consequentialism. Kantianism advocates for the judgment of actions based on the intrinsic features of the act. Essentially, utilitarianism gives the highest regard to what will happen, whereas Kantianism gives regard to what is being done. Although utilitarianism is right to examine how an act affects the amount of happiness generated, ultimately the act in of itself should be the standard of how moral it is. Regarding the
Actions should only be judged by their consequences and neither means nor motives dictate the degree of morality. Each person’s happiness is valued equally. Mill claims that happiness is not only desirable, but also the only thing desirable as an end. All other things are means to achieve happiness.
Opposingly, according to Kantianism, the source of all morality is the existence of the good will. Moral acts are only moral if they done for the right reasons. Only acts that are done purely out of duty are considered moral. If the act cannot be turned into a universal maxim without contradicting itself, then it is not moral. One cannot commit an act that they wouldn’t will everyone to follow as a rule.
Beyond their initial premises, Kantianism and Utilitarianism contrast on many points. An action is right in Utilitarianism if it generates the most happiness, and in Kantianism, it is right if it performed out of duty and exists in accordance with the imperative. Utilitarianism views the agent as generating consequence and is held accountable for the effects caused. Kantianism views the agents as expressing good will and held accountable for motive (which should be out of duty). Ultimately, utilitarianism views morality as an extrinsic value: simply a means of obtaining happiness. Kantianism views morality as an intrinsic good, and valuable to existence
In Kantianism, false promises are fundamentally wrong. The generalized maxim would contradict itself. Not only that, but it violates the autonomy of another person. Kant explains, “For the man whom I seek to use for my own purposes by such a promise cannot possibly agree with my way of behaving to him, and so cannot himself share the end of the action (42).” The other person’s humanity is being used as a means for ends. The objection to this is there is a lack of respect for a fellow individual's rationality and humanity. Regardless of how the money is spent, the agency of another has been violated. For utilitarianism, lying is only wrong if it creates net unhappiness. It allows people to justify initial immoral acts. According to utilitarianism, if the promise is made and nothing is done with the money, then it is immoral. But what is by itself an immoral act can be justified by positive consequences. The problem with this mode of evaluation is that it means that the minority can suffer to benefit the majority, and that someone with poor intentions can be regarded as moral because of the consequences of their