Preview

Utilitarian vs. Kantian

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1188 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Utilitarian vs. Kantian
This paper was written during the final exam for an ethics class, from memory. As such, there are no referances, but it still makes for a pretty good outline for a paper on utilitarian and Kantian ethical theories.

With so many varying views on morals and ethics, trying to use reason in ethics without resorting to emotional judgments is difficult. The first stop to overcoming this obstacle is to begin by studying ethical theories. Once a good grasp of the theories has been established, the next task is to create an extreme hypothetical situation and apply the theories to it. Once this can be achieved correctly, it will become easier to make ethical decisions in day-to-day life. Following this process the situation is thus: ten people are in a coastal cave with one exit. The first person trying to exit gets stuck in the entrance trapping the other nine within the cave. The only way to extract the one is to use explosives, killing the one. If the one is not freed, he/she would survive, but the nine would be drowned by the rising tide. Examining this scenario and applying Kantian Ethical Theory (Kantian) and Utilitarian Theory it becomes evident that the right thing to do is to blast that mother lover out of the way whether one takes it from the perspective of the one or the nine.

The first exploration will be taken from the viewpoint of the one using Kantian Ethical Theory. At first glance, Kantian seems to suggest that this person could not kill him/herself because in Kant 's writings he states that suicide is wrong. The reason for this is because of the maxim given in the act (A), circumstances (C), end (E) format of "(A) I will kill myself, (C) when I am in pain, (E) out of self love." According to Kant the purpose of self love prevents one from killing oneself, and this paradox cause this maxim to fall within what he calls "narrow duties." However, in this scenario, the circumstances and the purpose of the action are different. So

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    utilitarion vs kantianism

    • 1099 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The main rule of utilitarianism is to perform the one action that will provide the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain to the greatest number of people. In our case study, one would think the choice is quite easy, if we let go of Gary, we are providing no happiness for anyone and a great deal of pain to his family and friends and to ourselves. However, the one person that will get pleasure from this scenario is perhaps Gary, who is suffering. According to the utilitarian theory, the right action to perform would be to do everything in our power to save Gary, because if we save him there would be a lot more people that will be happy then if we were to let him die. There is only one person who would get pleasure from letting Gary go, and that is Gary himself. One could argue that the person watching Gary suffer will provide that person with a great amount of pain, but if we were to let Gary go, as painful as it may be to watch our friend die and be the one responsible, we may find ourselves happy that he did not suffer. The Greatest Happiness Principle suggest that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness. In our case study, saving Gary would promote happiness to ourselves and friends and family of Gary, letting Gary succumb to his injuries and letting go will promote the reverse of happiness to ourselves and friends and family of Gary. According to Mill, pleasures are qualitatively different, depending on their origin, meaning some pleasures should be counted more heavily. Does the pleasure we will receive in saving Gary and watching him live outweigh the pleasure Gary might receive by not suffering and dying a quick death. According to…

    • 1099 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Louis P. Pojman, “Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism” in Steven M.Cahn “Exploring Ethics –An Introductory Anthology” (Oxford University Press, 2011 , ISBN:978-0-19-975751-0) pp. 105-113…

    • 290 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    This essay aims to argue the views of two different theorist, Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant, with regards to their views on moral worth of an action. The idea of good and bad creates heated debates among many, but this essay will successfully unravel the layers of Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism and his belief that all our motives are driven by pleasure and pain. While arguing Kant’s opposing argument that moral worth of an act revolves around democratic attitudes, and that moral truths are founded on reasons that is logical to all people. When one breaks down both theories, it occurs that Kant’s theory comes out to be the more sensible one in numerous aspects.…

    • 281 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    From the vantage point of the history of ethical theory, there can be little doubt…

    • 136 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Kant And Utilitarianism

    • 730 Words
    • 3 Pages

    According to Kant, he believes that the only thing unconditionally good is good will. Good will is the idea of people having to do ones moral duty. Kant’s ethical theories are based off of the categorical imperatives. Categorical imperatives, as stated during class, act only on those rules that you can rationally will to be universal. In response to Kant’s theory, I believe that good will is not the only thing that is unconditionally good. I believe this because there will be many instances in life where having a good will can lead to tragic situations.…

    • 730 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The two sources of moral guidance are the rivaling theories of Kantianism and Utilitarianism, both normative moral theories, meaning they deal with how we know what is right or wrong. Kantianism is a deontological theory developed by Immanuel Kant. This means that the theory holds the importance of duty and motives of an act in higher prestige than the consequences of said act. Kant argued, what came with is religiosity, that we, humans are rational, moral beings. This meant that we understand intrinsically what our moral duty is; this means that our motives that we act on will be based on what we feel it is our duty to do and then equally important goodwill. Goodwill is what, Kant believed to be good without question, for example murder and lying. This is where Kant introduces the idea of maxims. Maxims are rules that are formulated as rules to follow as moral law similar to a divine commandment e.g. do not murder, do not lie. Kant claimed that in order for a maxim to be used as a moral law it must pass the test that is Categorical Imperative (CI). The CI consists of 3 formulations, the Universal Law, this is the test of the logical possibility of universalizability – “Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will should become a universal law” which claims that if a maxim is universalizable then if every person were to follow the same maxim then the world would be a more moral place. Secondly was the End in itself which claimed that it is fine to use people to achieve goals as long as that is not all you use them for and lastly the Kingdom of Ends which was Kant’s logical combination of the two. Kant held two things on equal as Universalizable maxims and these were to never lie and to never murder, so in this case then Kant would agree on never murdering because he would argue that murdering is not part of a moral duty or a goodwill motive. Kant’s theory sounds all well and good but it lacks massive ecological validity because it is not applicable to…

    • 1089 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Two of the most well-known philosophers of ethics, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, possess distinct views on the founding principles of morality and justice. Kant contends that morality relies on autonomy and kindness, whereas Mill bases the theory on the ideal of happiness, or utility. This essay aims to clarify Kant's view of autonomy and goodness, compare it to Mill's utilitarianism, and analyze their divergent perspectives on drug legalization and decriminalization in the context of their respective ethical theories. The concept of acting out responsibilities rather than inclination or pleasure is at the very core of Kant's definition of goodness. According to Kant, goodwill is abiding by moral standards despite the repercussions since one acknowledges their inherent worth.…

    • 1205 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    In this essay we will discuss what Kant’s and a utilitarian’s view on insider trading would be. As we have discussed in previous essays, Kant believed that moral rules could be known through reason and not just by observation (Shaw and Barry 69). For me this is the basis of all decisions that we make and why I would support Kant’s point of view on insider trading. Utilitarianism concentrates on producing the greatest amount of happiness and using it as a standard to determine if an action is right or wrong (Shaw and Barry 62). Utilitarianism requires too much concentration on individual aspects of what the greatest happiness is and basing moral standards around them.…

    • 780 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The difference between utilitarianism and relativism is that in utilitarianism, something is good when it does the good for the most people. For example killing thousands of people to save billions. This is in reference to when the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. It killed thousands of people, but it was for the good of the world, and ended World War II. Another example from our textbook is of the trolley problem, where five people were on the track and the train was headed their way. They would surely be killed if the train continues. However, there is a switch that the train could be diverted into, and one person is on that track. According to utilitarianism, “you would be permitted and required to pull the switch.”…

    • 246 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Kant Vs Utilitarianism

    • 318 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Utilitarianism and Kant’s respective have different ways for demonstrating whether an act we do is right or wrong. Corresponding to Kant, we should look at our maxims, intentions, of a particular action. Kantians believe “If we are rational, we will each agree to curb our self-interest and cooperate with one another” (Shafer-Landau, Russ 194). In other words, humans are rational beings capable of rational behavior and should not be used purely for self-interest. On the other hand, Utilitarian’s believe that we should do actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness. However, this could associate using people as mere means and lead to the sacrifice of lives for the greater good.…

    • 318 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Suicide is the intentional termination of one's own life with the objective being to cease living. For the purposes of this essay, self-sacrifice, or suicide for the sake of others, will not be considered a form of suicide as in that situation the individual does not possess the desire to die, they are instead putting the lives of others above their own. The standard position on suicide holds that all suicides are immoral and irrational except for in cases of terminal illness. This position on suicide is too restrictive and dismisses the suffering others experiences in instances beyond terminal illness. There are extreme situations in which most would agree that suicide is an acceptable choice. For example, someone trapped in a fire or subjected…

    • 1075 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Ursury Laws

    • 681 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The fundamentals of ethics. (2nd ed., p. G-6). New York: Oxford University Press.…

    • 681 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The classical theories of morality are Aristotle's perspective called Nicomachean Ethics, the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, and the Theory of Utilitarianism morality by John Stuart Mill. These classical theories create the basis of morality and moral argument. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory regarding the greater good. It rationalizes; the actions a person makes in their life and says they should be directed towards achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. An action promoting happiness is right and actions diminishing happiness are wrong.…

    • 953 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    First off, we know that Kantian doesn’t agree with Utilitarian when it comes to certain principles. So Kantian would be immoral when it comes to on-line gambling. Kantian believes that it can cause a negative impact because Kant believes that people should make rational decisions; and making a rational decision would be moral. So, if someone knows that they have a 1 in a million chance of winning money, that would be an irrational decision, if the decide to still spend money in…

    • 84 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Morality is a set of individual beliefs of what is reflected as correct. Kantianism and Utilitarianism seek to provide answers on how to approach a moral problem which would affect the morality of a person. This paper will attempt to clarify how Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ, as well as discuss why I believe Utilitarianism is the most plausible when it comes to deliberating abortion. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states that the best action is one that maximizes utility. It is essentially concerned with outcomes, more specifically into which outcome brings out the “greatest good” for the involved parties.…

    • 874 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays