kant vs utilitarianism

Damon Land

Ethics: Kantian vs Utilitarianism

 

 

Kant was a firm believer in both autonomy, and rationality. He believed that good will is the only unqualified good thing; that motivation behind the action is all that matters, regardless of the results. Basic example: 

You see a beggar on the road claiming to be homeless, you give him money with the intention of helping not only him, but the world. The man, however, uses the money to buy a knife to kill dozens of people.

In this instance, Kantian ethics would say you did the right thing, because though the results were bad, your intentions were good. Basis of Kantian ethics is to do what is best for humankind, even if it means to sacrifice your own wellbeing.

 

On the other hand, utilitarianism is a hedonistic view on ethics that states that we as human, are in pursuit of maximum pleasure. Maximum pleasure, however, can be achieved by not only pursuing just pleasure, but also by minimizing pain.

I certainly find utilitarianism to be much more plausible being that I find more flaws in Kantian ethics. The main issue with Kantian ethics is that it requires a person to do what is best morally, regardless of one’s self. My issues with this are that for one, morals are up for interpretation, and what may be morally correct to one, may not be to another. To set a specific code of morals, is an infringement on one’s autonomy, something Kant is actually against. I strongly believe that someone (humanity) can do ANYTHING out of their own self-interest. I feel, everything someone does, is for themselves. If this same beggar from the previous example was to ask me for money, me giving him the money would not be for him, it would be firstly for me. I say this because if giving this man the money didn’t affect me (in which giving him the money didn’t make me feel like a better person), I wouldn’t have done it. The act of giving, is a self-pleasing act, that happens to coincides (most times) with another person being pleased. Kant believes that self-interest comes secondary to doing what is morally correct.

Without going into the different levels of pleasure and pain, I do feel that utilitarianism is in many ways plausible. I do believe that people strive for pleasure and seek to eliminate pain. I feel that,  though Mills sees it as degrading to humans, it IS almost like an instinct that we have as humans. While pain isn’t strictly limited to physical, a good example is:

A stove has been on for a few minutes cooking food. You accidently touch this stove with your hand, and immediately, without any thought, you pull your hand away from the stove.

Why is this? If not instinct, what makes us move our hand away from the stove? If not instinct what is it? Surely you did not think, “hey, this hurts, let me move my hand.” It was a natural response. Why do humans seek sexual interaction? Surely, sex is a form of pleasure for most. How about financial success? Yet another form of pleasure. But what exactly is defined as pleasure? Dictionary defines it as, “a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment.” Basically, whatever you strive or live for, is pleasure, and as long as you’re living, you’re in pursuit of pleasure. While the counter to this maybe suicide, I also believe that people who commit suicide may not all be psychopaths. Victims of suicide maybe in pursuit of happiness still, if either 1) they believe in life as an avenue to another life or eternal life, or 2) they feel like their greatest pain, is in fact life itself, and to eliminate this, would actually be a pursuit at again, maximizing pleasure.

 Barbara

1.All actions are selfish
2.To give, is an action
3.Giving is Selfish