|Kantian Ethical Theory| > |Utilitarianism|

Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) was the founding father of the Kantian Ethical Theory. This theory is centered around three major principles. Never use yourself or someone else simply as a means, promote your own and other peoples rationality and autonomy, and the intention behind an action is what determines whether it is ethical rather than the consequences of the action. The Utilitarian perspective opposes Kantian Ethics. A Utilitarian will argue that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong in proportion as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill 4). Their theory of morality focuses heavily on the consequences of a persons actions and, more specifically, the amount of pleasure and freedom from pain that ones actions will yield.

Kant's beliefs are more plausible than the latter for a number of reasons. The first is that Utilitarianism promotes an extremely hedonistic lifestyle, stating that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as goals and that all other attractive things are only attractive because they either produce pleasure or prevent pain. Such a belief is so simple that it can be inculcated in animals because it requires little thought and yet what defines us as persons is our ability to think and our autonomy. So if our ability to process thoughts, reason, and make logical decisions is what differentiates us from animals and characterizes our human nature, why should we guide our lives based on the same principles that animals use to survive in the wild?

In addition, Kant's theory of morality actually incorporates the Utilitarian principle, but it is not the guiding principle and should not be a guiding principle. Kant's idea of happiness as a goal is actually interpreted by Mark Timmons in his piece on Moral Theory: Kant's System of Duties. In this piece, Mark Timmons speculates as to why Kant doesn't explicitly state why we don't have a duty to promote our own happiness:

“Furthermore, our nature as autonomous agents essentially involves using our end-setting capacities to pursue various projects in life that are aimed at achieving our own happiness” (Timmons 213).

Essentially what is being said is that Kant assumes it is human nature to seek out happiness. But this will not be possible unless we are able to use our rationality and autonomy to set ends that we can pursue and accomplish happiness.

One might try to find a contradiction in Kant's theory by saying, “If we must promote the happiness of others, what should one do if asked to reveal the location of someone who is being sought out to be killed by a murderer?” Kant would respond, saying that we cannot seek everything that others want; their wants are too numerous and diverse, and of course, sometimes incompatible (O'Neill 178). So, just like a Utilitarian must decide between what is most pleasurable and what pains they must avoid, a Kantian must use rationality and judgment to decide what ends he/she wants to help another person achieve. Kant might also go on to say that if two people (such as the example above) are in conflict, and you have to help one or the other, then you would not be immoral to deny help to the person who has bad intentions, and aid the one whose intentions are good (even if that persons intentions are only good for the time being).

There are many ways that Kantian Ethics can be interpreted, but regardless, the Kantian Ethical Theory will always be more plausible than the Utilitarian perspective because it gives a more absolute and clear-cut explanation on what human nature is, what it entails, and how to best live correctly without hindering (and actually promoting) the happiness of those around us.

Acts without good intentions are unethical

Deceiving your friend is an act without good intentions

Therefore deceiving your friend is unethical