Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism

Kantian Ethics was formulated by Immanuel Kant. He believed that goodwill was the only source of ethical actions in the world. He did not think it was ethical to perform a task for personal interest. Kantian Ethics has five formulas which should act as the guide to our morals. The Categorical Imperative tells us that moral acts should be done for duty and not for personal gain. The Formula of Universal Law says that the motives for an action must be applicable to all situations. The formula for humanity as an end in itself says that the motives behind actions should benefit humanity. The formula for Autonomy says that people are bound to moral law by their will and not other influences. Finally the Kingdom of Ends simply means to follow our maxims.

            Utilitarianism is formed around the idea that your actions should be motivated by the maximization of happiness and the minimization of pain. This form of Ethics was formulated By Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. It is believed that the moral benefits of an action are determined by the outcome of the action. This does not matter if it was done for personally reasons or simply a nice gesture. It is also undetermined if there is a moral difference between intended consequences and actual consequences of a situation.

            I agree with Mill and Bentham in my view of ethics. I think believe that most people are egoists and are motivated by personal interest, personal interest than leads to the maximization of happiness and minimization of pain. The maximization of happiness can also come in many forms. It doesn’t always have to be direct for example helping someone cross the street. That is a positive action that promotes happiness for both parties involved. It brings joy to the old women because it’s less stressful for her and the minimized stress takes away the pain caused by crossing the street. Then the person helping the woman to cross gains happiness because of the good deed they did, and their pain (going out of their way) is minimized by the joy the women has for the help.

Then you have the situations where the person doesn’t care about the welfare of others but merely for their own. This is still moral because even if they are bringing pain to others they are still maximizing their personal happiness and minimizing their pain. For example if the person ignored the old woman and didn’t help her across the street they maximize happiness because they might still be on time for an important meeting and they won’t have to deal with being yelled at because they weren’t late. Although the old woman may now be unhappy the other person still acted morally.

The final example would be if the person did help the old woman cross the street but only in hopes of getting a reward. Even if the person doesn’t get a reward later on, it is still moral because the person did it to begin with. In this scenario the outcome has not importance. All that matters is that they decided to try and get happy.

 

 

This is present in all forms and is what I feel a definite form of morals.

1.      All acts that minimize self pain are Morally good

2.      All egoistic acts are acts that minimize self pain.

3.      Therefore all egoistic acts are morally good.