Kantian Ethics VS Utilitarianism

 

The dispute between Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism 

Kantianism is a philosophical theory by a German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. It is a deontological ethical theory based on the notion that "It is impossible to think of anything at all in the world or even beyond it that could be considered good without limitation except goodwill." According to Kantianism, the morality of an action or decision depends on the principle behind the intention, not on the consequences.  To elaborate, he claimed that humans are rational beings and that they should employ reasoning skills or reasonable thinking when making ethical decisions. Thus, a person's intention must be evaluated in morally decent decisions/actions led and motivated solely by goodness and obligation. According to this view, the most important factor to consider before acting is an obligation. Kant's fundamental argument for not considering the outcomes of activities when judging their morality is that he believed that theft, lying, murder, crimes, and so on had to be prohibited, even if such actions sometimes resulted in more happiness than other alternatives. The basis of Kant's ethics is centered on a categorical imperative that is universally true for all people regardless of any personal desire. It means duties are universal for everyone, and it is not fair to make an exception for any personal or circumstantial demands. For example, stealing is a universally dreadful crime; thus, even if stealing without causing significant harm could save lives, stealing is not permitted in this scenario since it cannot be universalized. One would assume Kant says that if one of his purposes is to be joyful, these actions are unworthy. This is a blunder. Even Kant believes that making oneself happy is a desirable thing. Kant believes that people's happiness is a good thing. There is nothing wrong with doing something for one's own happiness; this is not selfishness. A person can gain moral worth by doing things he enjoys, but the reason he does them cannot be because he enjoys them; they must be done because they are required by duty.

 

Utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism is a moral theory based on hedonism and consequentialism that focuses on the consequences of an action and treats intentions as irrelevant.  According to this theory, good consequences means good actions. This philosophy believes happiness is what everyone wants, so it should drive morality. So, if a decision/ action brings greater happiness, i.e., good consequences, it is considered a good deed regardless of its initial intention. Although like Kant, the utilitarians agree that a moral theory should apply universally to everyone. However, the way to get it is based on seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Utilitarianism follows the principle of utility which encourages acting to produce the greatest good for the most significant number of people. It motivates us to take actions that produce the most overall happiness.For example, if a doctor has five medicines for six patients in a circumstance where one patient requires all five medicines and the other five patients require one medicine to save lives, saving five lives should be a reasonable decision based on the utility principle advocates maximizing happiness.

Although both of these moral theories express the ethical standard of action, they define it in very contradictory ways.  The basic difference is that Kantianism is a deontological moral philosophy. On the other hand, Utilitarianism is a teleological theory. Kantianism and Utilitarianism have different ways of adjudicating whether an action is right or wrong.  Kantianism concentrates on purpose, whereas Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of a decision is comparatively easier to determine the morally right actions since Kantian ethics offers higher precision.

In contrast to the utilitarian theory, it is based on the consequential impact of human happiness, which is ambiguous. Even in exceptional situations, Kant's ethics does not allow taking any decision against the universal rulebook for the greater good. However, since Utilitarianism cares about the consequences, it permits any action against the contemporary moral rules that ultimately leads to the greater good for everyone.  

For example, according to Kant's ethics, if an assassin comes to someone's house and asks his brother to assassinate him, it is not permissible for him to lie under these circumstances. It is because everyone should act solely out of duty and benevolence. This leads to his concept of the categorical imperative, which holds that a person's behavior can only be justified if transformed into a maxim or a universal law that applies to everyone. As a result, according to Kantianism, he cannot make any exceptions for personal needs. On the contrary, lying in this instance is permissible since he could save one life by lying.  Because saving a life maximizes overall happiness, lying in this situation does not violate moral ethics, even though it contradicts universal moral principles; according to Utilitarianism, although lying contradicts universal moral values.  Thus, the underlying disagreement between Utilitarianism and Kantianism is one of determining what is right and wrong. Although they both support good and happiness, the way they define it varies significantly.

Analyzed by - Sadia Ahmmed