Kant vs. Utilitarianism

Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism are two of the most prevalent ethical theories today.  While initially sharing a common interest in morality, these theories ultimately conflict when we look deeper into the nature of their concepts.  Immanuel Kant’s theory of Kantian ethics triumphs as the more principled of the two.

Kantian ethics convey the idea that what defines us as a person is our rationality and autonomy.  Further, it suggests that we are never to undermine or disrespect someone else’s rationality or autonomy.  Kantian ethics believe that acting morally is doing the right thing with good intentions.  Likewise, the intention behind an action is what determines whether it is ethical, not the consequence.
John Stuart Mill's established theory of Utilitarianism indicates that actions are right to the extent that they promote happiness.  Happiness is defined by the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain.  Additionally, everyone’s happiness is equally valuable.  Utilitarianism functions off of cost-benefit analysis, calculating the overall amount of happiness generated by a particular course of action. 

My biggest issue with Utilitarianism is that it does not take into consideration the happiness sacrificed for what’s believed to be “the greater good”.  Perhaps my critic could argue that in one instance it is imperative to sacrifice the life of a mass murderer to save the lives of hundreds.  However, it would be rash for us to assume the same precautions for each instance.  Imagine we are in a Third World country where food and shelter is scarce.  These circumstances have made us protective of the resources we have, thus making us find stealing as punishable by death.  A young, impoverished boy who hasn’t eaten in days walks by a kiosk at the local market and grabs an apple, only to be caught moments later by the kiosk owner.  The rules established by this society have stated that the boy is to be punished by death in a public forum. 

Utilitarianism would not find this particular instance immoral because of the beliefs of the society.  Although the boy and his family would experience pain, the rest of society would be happy because
“justice” is being served.  Therefore, the murder is ethical.  This is a repulsive idea because you cannot justify a murder of a child because of the opinions of a particular community.  What causes happiness to one community cannot be defined as moral for the sole fact that it has generated happiness for a larger number than it has created pain.  Without deeper consideration we are not addressing the true “good” that has come from an action.  What is right is not always what generates the most happiness. 

Murder is immoral

Killing for theft is murder

Therefore killing for theft is immoral