Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism

Jeff Latimer

PHI 120-05

Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism 

Kantian Ethics- Emmanuel Kant was a philosopher who lived from 1728-1804 and founded Kantian Ethics. Kantian Ethics says that the meaning in life is to promote rationality and autonomy in both others and ourselves. He states that our rationality and autonomy define us as human beings. We should act in a way that you treat humanity as an end and not as a means. We should never use someone else just as a means to get what you want. The only truly good act is a good will. Kant believes that it is the intention of an action that determines whether or not the action is right or wrong. Kantian Ethics is for everyone and is something that everyone can follow no matter who they are.

Utilitarianism- Utilitarianism, like Kantian ethics, believes that everyone’s happiness is equal. They have a more hedonistic view which states that pleasure is the most desirable goal. They think that what define human beings are different types of pleasure and pain. They believe that there is bodily pleasure and intellectual pleasure. Utilitarianists think that we should do whatever causes the most happiness. Utilitarian’s use outcome of an action to determine whether or not an action is good rather than its intention.

            I think that Kantian Ethics is the most plausible. Unlike Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics looks that the intention rather than the content of the action. If someone intents on hurting someone else but instead they make their target person happy this could make their intentions worse the next time they try to do harm. Intentions matter more than outcomes because they show what we truly want. When the intentions of an action are seen, most people are better able to enjoy the outcome of that action. An intention that is purely good is a good will. Good wills are what make happiness what it is. The kind of happiness that is a result of a good will cannot be replaced. Good Wills causes happiness not only for the person who is receiving the good will but also the person who is sending it.  By doing acts of goodness where our intentions are that we want to help others we create happiness for ourselves and others. I think that it is hard to judge how our actions affect others. I disagree with Utilitarianism’s belief that we should spend time trying to figure out with action should promote the most happiness. Human being can never fully understand how much happiness an action will cause. Instead of trying to figure out how to make the most happiness for ourselves and others we should do basic things such as showing good will and never undermining rationality or autonomy.  I also agree with Kant that every individual has his/her rights. If people make the decision to kill one person they feel is unimportant to society in order to help others who are more important they are trying to put a value on a human life and denying our human rights.

All acts that cause harm to others are immoral

Killing is an act that causes harm to others

Killing is immoral