Utilitarianism makes ethical decisions based on the results that the action will cause. However, for the Kantian theory, it is believed that human reason is the only pure good, and they disregard the consequences. Kant discusses that the mentioned human reason should be devoid of the influence of desires or emotions. This opposes the Utilitarian view that ignores motives of an action as not important and approves the consequences. According to Kant, a purely good act is performed due to the person’s obligation to the categorical imperative.
Immanuel Kant’s The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is his first crucial attempt to provide moral philosophy, and his work has endures a standout among the most powerful philosophers. Kant’s analysis can be perceived as a foundation for imminent studies by clarifying the major ideas and rules of moral rationale and demonstrating that they are subordinated to rational factors. He seeks to prove that the discovery of the principle of morality is achievable. What is more, he grants a revolutionary assertion the rightness of a choice is controlled by the nature of the principle an individual decides to follow. Therefore, Kant’s moral sense theories often are depicted as strikingly unconventional.
The divine command theory, utilitarianism, Kant’s duty defined morality, natural law theory, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics are the five types of ethical theories. The divine command theory states that what is morally right and wrong will be decided by God. Utilitarianism states that “Action “A” is morally right if and only if it produces the greatest amount of overall happiness. Kant’s duty defined morality states that what is important is acting for the sake of producing good consequences, no matter what the act is. Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil.
First of all, Kant 's second formulation of the categorical imperative specifies that "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means. "(Kant) According to this point, people should help the hungry because of that they are humans. On the other hand, enforcing people to help the hungry make the situation opposition of the formula of Kant because there are always some who do not want to help them because of that they are human, but they help the hungry to not break the law. Thus, enforcing people to help the hungry does not make them treat the hungry as an end themselves. This point also embraces the Kant 's idea that motivation of action is more important than consequences.
(ii) (ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. Principles of Kant’s Theory Kant’s theory was actually based on the following five points: • Moral view of Kant is Categorical Imperative. • Universitality: No moral statement can be valid if it cannot be universal. • Intrinsic Values: Every human is an end in itself and not a mean to some other end.
To look at whether restraint is ethical, Utilitarianism and Kant’s ethical theory can be applied to cases where patients have been restrained. These theories have different ways for deciding if an act is acceptable or not. Utilitarian theory is the belief (based on morals) that an action is right if it creates the greatest good for the most people. It is based on the calculated consequence or outcome of a specific action. If somebody using an utilitarian approach thinks an action would bring the most pleasure or happiness to the majority of people then it would be the right thing to do.
J.S. Mill noticed this issue, introducing rule utilitarianism, in which he recognised the differences in different types of pleasures. However, this is much more complex than the seemingly practical to use act utilitarianism. Assigning different ‘levels’ to different pleasures and pains can take up a considerable amount of time, when sometimes a quick decision is necessary. Furthermore, with both act and rule utilitarianism, the pleasure and pain of every potential situation must be calculated to decide the most moral course of action.
Here, Kant seems to be suggesting that the criterion for morally permissible actions is derived from the categorical imperative; that is, it offers us a template through which we can act for the sake of the law. To validate this claim, Kant makes a transition from the official formula and introduces an analogic formula of the law-of-nature which states, “so act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature” (421.16). He elucidates this idea by means of the followings four
Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. The morality of an action is determined by the outcome of that action.
Kant is remembered in ethics for his deontological ethical theory where he states that an action is morally justifiable if an actor is bound by his obedience to act by a set of laws. Kant’s ethics thus states that one “must” always conform to a set of rules hence at other times called “categorical imperative.” According