Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism

     Kantian ethics are described as ethical standards that promote the respect of a fellow person's rationality and autonomy. It stresses that, despite the outcome of one's actions, one must have good intentions to remain ethically sound. Utilitarianism is the belief that moral soundness comes from maximizing the amount of pleasure felt by the most people possible. Despite the intentions of the agent, the outcomes caused by the agent's actions are what are judged to be morally good or not.
     If one were to look at Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, one would be able to easily see that one of the biggest areas of difference between the two beliefs is the intention versus the outcome. Kantians believe that intentions are what decide the morality of an action. Utilitarians believe that this is judged by the outcome. If I had to take a side in this issue, I would and I am siding with Kantian ethics. In my opinion, as long as the intentions are good, the action is morally sound, at least from a conceptual standpoint. While the belief that the outcome is more important does make sense to me, I can think of multiple situations where Utilitarianism would hold flaws. If Hitler had spared the 11 million people he had killed in the Holocaust because he thought it would have been detrimental to his power in some way, that would not have made him any less evil. Roman emperors demanded the slaughter and brutal battle of gladiators in the colosseum in order to satisfy and bring pleasure to the countless Roman citizens who viewed them. The vast amounts of pleasure this brought to the people did not make those games any more morally sound.
     Both of the examples I mentioned talk about corruption in political leaders. This is where I find many unethical actions to take place, in corruption. To put this in Barbara terms: All acts that are backed by negative intentions are unethical. All corruption is backed by negative intentions. Therefore, all corruption is unethical.