Wolff On the other hand, Kant proposes that only duty and rules should govern our actions, as consequences are beyond our control. To decide what is right or wrong in our lives, I think that we should first define the scope of our dilemma, take into account the advantages and disadvantages in both course of actions, and only then we should apply the appropriate theory to justify ourselves.
Also I agree completely with notion that the concept of the utilitarian calculus is flawed, I think that a world where pleasure has to be calculated is quite unrealistic and is hard to apply so in that respect I would think that Kantian ethics is a more suitable theory.
Are we going to depend on someone else to help us determine the action we are going to take? Reason is great, but I think we need more in order to motivate moral duties. A healthy individual, with no family, walks into the hospital for a routine check.
Internet Encyclopedia of PhilosophyWeb. Olubusola Osunsanya October 29, at 2: Bentham would say that you should not tell the Japanese soldiers that Mr. Obviously since I cant the best of both worlds, to answer your conclusion of questions I make the decision to be neither.
Tan and his family. I would lie, because I value my life more. They have come to your home to look for Mr. Because utilitarianism only cares that the end result is an increase in happiness and does not consider the intentions behind an action, I believe that Kantian ethics is a better moral law to follow when compared to utilitarianism.
Now, the doctor is faced with two options; he can either kill the healthy individual to save the other ten dying patients, or allow the ten dying patients to die and let the healthy individual live.
In this sense, this theory is flawed because although a certain action may cause the greatest happiness for the greatest number of the people Chinese and Muslimsthe Sikhs will be unhappy. You say that because taking cigarettes from people that are smoking would cause suffering for people, it is morally wrong.
In other words, the consequence of your action does not matter, all that matters is that the act of lying is wrong, and therefore you should not lie. According to Kant, killing the healthy patient would be using a person as a means to an end, which violates the categorical imperative.
As you stated in earlier comments, ethics will never be perfect especially since every one has there own opinions. Kantian ethics bases the morality of a decision based off of whether or not the maxim could be a conceivable universal law of nature—which makes it seem heavily rule-based and strict.
My opinion is that lying is acceptable when protects yourself or others from potential harm. In the example above, it can be said that the Kantian response seems intuitively right as killing the healthy individual just because he can save ten other lives violates the goals of humanity.
The two ethical theories offers solutions to the two ends of the spectrum with definite guidelines for each and all scenarios. Imagine a hospital had just received six dying patients who need organ transplants.
I still view both Utilitarian and Kantian ethics as demanding, but after reading your post, I strongly favor Kantianism as Utilitarianism is far too demanding. Is the doctor justified in killing the healthy patient to save the six dying patients?
In this situation, what is the doctor morally obliged to do? According to utilitarianism, the doctor can justify his killing the healthy patient as long as it maximizes utility. Conversely, before Kant decides if killing the healthy individual is moral or immoral, he would consider if killing the healthy individual will respect the goals of humanity.
Bentham formed the consequentialist utilitarian theory which evaluates the moral rightness of a decision based on its outcome, while Kant formed the deontological moral duty theory which evaluates the moral rightness of an action no matter what the consequence. Therefore, I believe that both Kantian ethics and utilitarianism are flawed in that they are on the opposite ends of the spectrum.
This maximizes the greatest happiness and utility for all Americans, and thus this makes the act of stealing tolerable. For example, lets say I was very against smoking cigarettes and decided that because cigarettes are very unhealthy, it i my duty to stop whoever I see smoking one.
Yes, acting in ways that do not take advantage of people sounds nice on the surface, and acting in ways that promote general happiness also sounds nice, but in every situation, neither works as a perfect ethical bible from which to act in all situations.
Each person has their own beliefs that may subconsciously seep into their decision making even after they recognize the that dilemma at hand requires them to expand and adapt.Utilitarianism vs.
Kantianism Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings.
The idea that you leave the essay on, disputing the definitions/life of Kantianism and Utilitarianism, clearly shows that you for one agree more with Kantianism. I for one, do agree with the idea of being a “rational being”; but, in the same sense I do like to see happiness of others.
Utilitarianism vs. Kantianism Essay - Utilitarianism vs. Kantianism Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human.
Feb 06, · Last semester, I was assigned to write a final paper on Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics for my Philosophy class. I had to study and evaluate the work of two philosophers named Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant.
Unlike Utilitarianism however, Kantianism states that ethics is a purely a priori discipline, thus, independent of experience, and that ethical rules can only be found through pure reason.
Also contrary to Utilitarianism, Kantianism asserts that the moral worth of an action should be judged on its motive and the action itself, and not on its. Utilitarianism v Kantianism Ethics can be defined as “the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way.” (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings.Download