ipl-logo

Immanuel Kant's Theory Of Utilitarianism

1228 Words5 Pages

Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two of the most notable philosophers in normative ethics. This branch of ethics is based on moral standards that determine what is considered morally right and wrong. This paper will focus on Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontology and J.S. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position.

According to J.S Mill, one should choose an action that maximizes the happiness …show more content…

This is because the consequences of the utilitarian mentality can’t be applied in all situations due to the dangerous outcomes it can lead to. Kantian ethics is concerned about practical reason and motives rather than the consequences of the action. In most cases, the utilitarian will base their actions on what the best result is for the greatest number of people, while Kant argues that a goodwill “is good only through its willing” (Kant, 2008, p. 106). In fact, Kant argues that even “with the greatest effort it should yet achieve nothing, and only the good will should remain…yet would it, like a jewel, still shine by its own light as something which has its full value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither augment nor diminish this value” (Kant, 2008, p. 106). In other words, if a person acts only out of duty and not self-interest, their action is morally justifiable regardless of what the consequence may be. As you can see, this belief is different from the utilitarian who mainly focuses on the end result of an act or the consequences of the …show more content…

He proposes to “act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end..” (O’Neil, 2008, p. 112). The utilitarian view, on the other hand, will use a human being as a means to an end if they are to benefit the majority. For example, the utilitarian would consider murdering one person if it can save the lives of thousands of Canadian citizens. In this situation, the utilitarian would be treating the individual as mere means, rather than as ends in themselves. In addition, he believes that “we just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as a mere means, and, if possible, that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 2008, p. 113). This principle acts as a moral code implying that one should never treat a person merely as a means to an end.

Overall, Kantian ethics focuses and recognizes the importance of the value of humanity. His categorical imperative ultimately leads to a “kingdom of ends,” in which norms that deny the value of humanity are not permitted. In my opinion, it would be difficult to disagree because most individuals value their own life. As it has been shown, the utilitarian view has its strengths and is certainly logical in some cases, however, Kantian ethics offer a more stable set of moral

Show More
Related
525 Words | 3 Pages

After all the reading and carefully thinking about what Mr. Lasken had requested from his physician it left me with the decision that Dr. Brody should not grant Mr. Lasken request to help end his life. In my discussion, I spoke about the Kantian Ethics and how it applies to the dilemma Dr. Brody was up against. To help end someone’s life purposely, regardless of their involvement, should not be done in the hands of someone else nor should anyone be placed in that situation. I considered both views, and found no favor into helping Mr. Lasken end his life and would be wrong on Dr. Brody behalf. As a physician you are sworn in by Hippocratic Oath and under that you are required in doing right by the patients; make sure all possible attempts

Read More
795 Words | 4 Pages

Deontology is portrayed as the investigation of the way of duty, obligation and commitment. The ethical quality of an activity depends on good intention, which is characterized by its adherence to a rule or set of guidelines. Such a rule is known as a maxim and if a man wills a maxim to wind up noticeably as a general or universal law with the end goal that everybody in any circumstance ought to maintain this adage, it is judged to be ethically or morally right. Immanuel Kant in his, 'Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, gives the focal idea of Kant's deontological reasoning. The downright basic incorporates three definitions that are utilized to judge the ethical pertinence of any goal or obligation.

Read More
1217 Words | 5 Pages

Utilitarianism is the moral theory that the action that people should take it the one that provides the greatest utility. In this paper I intend to argue that utilitarianism is generally untenable because act and rule utilitarianism both have objections that prove they cannot fully provide the sure answer on how to make moral decisions and what will be the ultimate outcome. I intend to do this by defining the argument for act and rule utilitarianism, giving an example, presenting the objections to act and rule utilitarianism and proving that utilitarianism is untenable. Both act and rule utilitarianism attempt to argue that what is right or wrong can be proven by what morally increases the well being of people. Act utilitarianism argues that

Read More
889 Words | 4 Pages

Utilitarianism is stated as, “Utilitarianism is the theory that an action is right if and only if it results in at least as much well-being as any alternative action.” While Kant described Kant’s moral theory as, “ right actions have moral value only if they are done with a ‘good will’.” Both theories attempt to reach positive results that benefit others; however, Kant focuses on doing whatever it takes to help others and not use them. While utilitarianism is when someone may do whatever it takes to earn or increase happiness. It does not matter whatever the action is as long as there is a result of happiness Most utilitarians think that sometimes people are not to blame for performing actions that we generally think of as very

Read More
1565 Words | 7 Pages

Bernard Williams’ essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, launches a rather scathing criticism of J. J. C. Smart’s, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian ethics. Even though Williams claims his essay is not a direct response to Smart’s paper, the manner in which he constantly refers to Smart’s work indicates that Smart’s version of Utilitarianism, referred to as act-Utilitarianism, is the main focus of Williams’ critique. Smart illustrates the distinction between act-Utilitarianism and rule-Utilitarianism early on in his work. He says that act-Utilitarianism is the idea that the rightness of an action depends on the total goodness of an action’s consequences.

Read More
928 Words | 4 Pages

The reason for this can be found in the ten commandants, specifically commandments six to eight. “Thou shalt not kill”, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and ”Thou shalt not steal” are all principles that Christians are told to follow. The relation between these and utilitarianism are that, by choosing not to partake in them, it sustains happiness for the most amount people. The main underlying teaching of God is to not make others upset or angry, but rather content with themselves. This is specifically how people that follow utilitarianism achieve their goal of making the most people happy and therefore supports the connection between these two

Read More
778 Words | 4 Pages

General Remarks In the first chapter of the essay utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill begins by observing something of a crisis in moral thinking: essentially, people have been unable to come to any agreement on what philosophies the notions of "right" and "wrong" are based on. Having portrayed this problem, Mill introduces utilitarianism as a prospective solution. He argues that it is already indirectly used as a standard, and that it achieves the requirements of being a first principle. It is imperative to note that Mill explains morality 's purpose as bringing about a specific state of the world.

Read More
550 Words | 3 Pages

Utilitarianism is defining an action as wrong if there are other available acts that benefit everyone affected more. Utilitarian’s decide whether an action is right or wrong based on how much joy or happiness it brings to an individual and everyone else. This can be tricky because an action may not actually be considered right just because it brings you joy. Robbing a bank could bring someone a lot of joy and money but that does not make it morally right, and it would affect those around you in a negative way witch would cause an unequal balance of happiness. They believe that the standard of right or wrong comes from happiness or pleasure, so if happiness is good then it must be right.

Read More
1312 Words | 6 Pages

It states that an action which is deemed right is one that has not merely some good consequences, but also the greatest amount of good consequences possible when the negative consequences are also given due considerations. According to the utilitarian principle, the righteousness of an action is solely judged on the basis of its consequences. Classical utilitarianism determines the balance of pleasure and pain for each individual affected by the action in question as well as the amount of utility for the whole

Read More
1163 Words | 5 Pages

Throughout history many great philosophers have attempted to unravel the origins of virtues by developing moral theories of their own. This document is designed to provide the reader with an overview of some of the more popular theories concerning morals. Three of the most popular moral theories are… Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotelianism. Though Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotelianism differ in many ways, they also share similar fundamentals. Utilitarianism is a highly acclaimed theory that is morally based on consequentialism.

Read More
2270 Words | 10 Pages

Utilitarianism is an ethical doctrine explicitly formulated in the late eighteenth century and since then has had many supporters, particularly in the Anglo world. As its name suggests, its substance is to define the correction of any action by its utility, ie, for the results or consequences resulting from it. Hence this doctrine is also known by the name of consequentialism.

Read More
1564 Words | 7 Pages

Utilitarian suggest that we make our moral decisions from the position of a benevolent, disinterested spectator. Rather than thinking about

Read More
1162 Words | 5 Pages

Traditional Utilitarianism was generally considered to be founded by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarian principles assumes that we can measure and add together the quantities of benefits made by a certain action and then measure and subtract from those benefits the quantities of harm the action will produce. Utilitarian principles states that the right act in a given situation is the one that produces the greatest utilities than another act. The act will only be right if it produces the most utility for all the persons affected by the action, including the person who performed the act. It also states, that not only direct and immediate consequences must be taken into consideration, but also all foreseeable future cost and benefits each alternative will have on each individual.

Read More
1711 Words | 7 Pages

Commonly, ethical systems are categorized into two major systems. The deontological approaches or normative ethical position which judges an action based on the adherence of the action to certain rules and the teleological approaches which judges primarily based on the consequences of an action (Hare, 1964). The Utilitarianism is assigned to the teleological approaches, as it does not evaluate an action by itself but by it’s

Read More
1515 Words | 7 Pages

Decisions about right and wrong fill each and every day. Turmoil exists due to deciding if Deontology, where one acts based on the right motives, or if Utilitarianism, where one should act in a way that would produce the best results and consequences, should govern decisions and their morality. However, I believe Deontology, which is reason and duty based, serves as the superior way to dictate morality. In this paper, I will explain both the principles of Deontology and Utilitarianism, discuss the superior aspects of Deontology as compared to Utilitarianism, as well as grapple with objections to Deontology. While both ethical frameworks contain parts of ideologies that could be seen as valid, Kant’s theory on Deontology holistically remains

Read More

More about Immanuel Kant's Theory Of Utilitarianism

Related Topics

Open Document