Kant vs. Utilitarianism

  Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) created Kantian ethics and eventually became the father of ethics. Kantian ethics at its most basic form is the idea that "good will" is the mandatory for an action to be considered morally good. An example of this idea is if I let someone have a cookie but once I give them that cookie I expect something in return eventually. Instead of just giving them a cookie to eat. Kantian ethics also points out the idea that we as humans are defined by rationality and autonomy. We should never use people to get what we need without thinking about what would happen to them.
         Utilitarianism is the counterpart to Kantian ethics and it is advocated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism in its most basic form is the idea that a good action is something that should create more pleasure/happiness then pain. An example of this is if you can foresee the future and in that future their is a tyrannical leader who tortures and kills thousands of people and because you see this future you decide to kill that person before he hurts anybody. The only two pleasures we as humans can feel are intellectual and bodily but it is forbidden to put your happiness above someone else's.
         In my own opinion I believe Utilitarianism makes more sense and is the better idea of the two. We as people are always after what is best for us bodily and intellectually and we shouldn't put our happiness over someone else's.
                                                   acts with good will leads to happiness
                                                         happiness leads to a good life
                                                    acts with good will lead to a good life
               

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.

Kantian ethics was developed by a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant, who believed what defined us as human beings are our rationality and autonomy. Kant created a system of moral law which is based on always respecting yours and everyone’s rationality and autonomy: (1) never undermining these traits in yourself or anyone else, and (2) always promoting rationality and autonomy is yourself and all other people. Kant created a universal law version of moral law which indicates that any moral law should be possible for all people to do, in all situations. An important distinction to make about Kant is that he believes what determines the goodness of an action is the intentions, not the consequences.

Utilitarianism is another major theory of ethics and was founded by philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism tells us that for humans, morality is based on increasing pleasure and decreasing pain. The central idea of Utilitarianism is to always act in a way which produces the greatest amount of happiness for all people who are affected. This means to always act in the greater interest; so if you have a choice to make only yourself happy or a large group of people happy, you should choose the latter because it generates the most happiness. In order to calculate amount of overall happiness the Utilitarians use a cost-benefit analyses. It is important to remember that Utilitarians believe that an action can be morally good even if the motives are bad.

I believe that Kant’s moral theory is the most plausible out of the two. I believe this because although always maximizing happiness is good in theory, to ask people to always act in the greater good is expecting too much. Furthermore I believe that in always striving towards promoting rationality and autonomy in you and others, a person will already be striving towards happiness. Another point of Kant I admire is his passage on good will and its importance in being truly morally good. A person may perform actions which end in good or even great consequences, but if they have malicious intentions, I do not believe they should be considered morally virtuous.

Barbara Reasoning:

1. All lies are unethical

2. All deceptions are lies

3. Therefore, all deceptions are unethical

Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism

 

                Kantian ethics state that an act is only morally good if it is done out of duty. If the action is done for some other reason or because the person doing the action has something to gain from it, it is unethical. The two imperatives of Kantian ethics are self-perfection and promoting the happiness of others. This idea exists on a higher intellectual level. Utilitarianism, however, is much more natural. The whole idea is to increase pleasure and decrease pain. One does this for themselves and also for the largest amount of people. This theory is much more plausible because human beings already do this for themselves naturally. It’s instinct that drives us to create the most happiness for ourselves. Utilitarianism is a very natural process. Things that come naturally to people are more plausible to expect. Therefore, utilitarianism is a plausible theory.

                Kant’s theory makes sense, that motive should play some role in ethics, but it’s not plausible to expect that from everyone. When you base ethics on how an actions consequence makes you feel, it makes it much simpler. Using Kant’s’ theory, if you donated towards charity to receive a tax write-off, it would be unethical. However, a utilitarian would view such an action as a win/win situation. The one giving the donation gains happiness as do the people receiving the donation. Pleasure was gained and pain was reduced. It’s also hard to know someone’s motive, only the person who does the action truly knows their motive. Therefore, the only person who knew it was unethical was the person who did it. The consequence still made others happy, and the person who did it obviously doesn’t care much for being ethical anyways so it’s a moot point. Utilitarianism makes more sense than Kant’s ethics.

Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism

Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism

Kantian ethics are an ethical theory developed by Emmanuel Kant, which is based on the principle that people should always act so that you respect every human being and yourself as a rational being.  Kant believed that the intention of a person’s action outweighs the outcome of the action, and in the intention is where the morality matters.  Kantian ethics state that people have an unconditional moral duty to do what is right, not because it will profit us, not because if we don’t do it and get caught we will be punished but because it is the right thing to do.  Kant went on to say that the only true moral act is done from a pure sense of duty.         

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that recognizes two absolutes in the world, pain and pleasure.  This ethical theory was created by Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill.  Utilitarianism is based on the idea that people’s ethical decisions should be based on whatever provides the greatest useful goodness for the greatest number of people.  Utilitarianism ethical theory believes that the moral benefit of an action is determined by the outcome of the action no matter what the motive behind the action was. 

I feel that the Utilitarianism ethical theory is the more plausible of these two ethical theories.  I say this because the Utilitarianism ethical theory is not only plausible it is the ethical standard of society today.  The basic Utilitarianism idea of the greatest good for the greatest amount is one of the basic building blocks of any democratic system of government.  To me Utilitarianism ethical theory makes the most common sense, pain is bad and pleasure is good.  It does not matter who you are, where you are from, or what you’re different and conflicting moral beliefs may be, people agree pain is bad and pleasure is good.  Utilitarianism is impartial, fair and promotes social harmony.  Utilitarianism ethical theory requires us to balance our interests with those of others around us.  Utilitarianism is flexible and sensitive to circumstances.  Utilitarianism does not label most actions as right or wrong and it allows flexibility and sensitivity to the circumstances surrounding an action.  This also makes it practical.  In general Utilitarianism links happiness with morality where Kant’s view sometimes seems to be opposing happiness against morality.  If a person lives on the principles of Utilitarianism, they disregard the motives involved in an action.  Utilitarian philosophy tries to separate the action from the actor and look at the bigger picture over the individual.  Utilitarian’s, living a life that caused the greatest widespread good would be considered by most people to be living a life of virtue.  

Barbara Logic:

1. All acts that maximize pleasure are morally good.

2. All acts of common sense are acts that maximize pleasure.

3. Therefore, all acts of common sense are morally good.

Kant vs utilitarianism

Aaron Edwards

1. The Kantian ethics state that an action can only be correct if we do it out of duty; to look at the action and not the consequences to the result of things.  A good will is only good without qualification.  Utilitarianism states that one should maximize their happiness and reduce suffering; this is the belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.  

2. What Kant was trying to say was that everyone in life has a duty and their duty is to the categorical imperative; the idea that we should all confirm to a law as the rest of the world conforms to one likewise. With that it brings up the concept of the “Golden Rule” as the bible would call it, where the ideology of reciprocity and “do onto others as you would want others to do onto you”.  This also brings up the reversal to this concept, which you also can understand due to the concept of right and wrong or stealing and lying in this case. No one wants someone to lie to or steal from them. Also “Treat humans as an end within themselves” Kant says because everyone human on earth has a purpose. Also with imperfect duties that there are two of them one is to seeking perfect in are talent and the other is seeking the happiness in other people.  This is true because many will not succeed in doing this but you can try your best and with that you will be fine.

Utilitarianism professes that, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” –John Stuart Mill.  Happiness is pleasure, with the absence of pain and unhappiness is pain, with the absence of happiness. With Mill’s idea that pleasure doesn’t only have to involve physical pleasure but also intellectual pleasure, shows that his concept could also work. One should not only care about their own pleasure, but also those of their peers as well. But on the contrary to this system, it shows that not all good deeds are done for the better good of the world, but for the individual’s personal motives and underlying drives, which I personally believe is the motive for a lot of the good deeds done. Finally, why I support Mill’s on his utilitarianism system is because of this saying, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question". I believe this statement is proclaiming the idea that even though we can all be in a dissatisfied state of mind, it is better to be in this disabled state, as opposed to being an animal or a fool, where one physically cannot keep up to par with a human and the other suffers from egocentrism.

3. Barbara

1. Everything S will be M.

2. Everything S will be P.

3. Never the less, everything M will be P

Barbara Argument in Ethics

Jose Collado,

The best way to define Kantian ethics versus Utilitarianism would be conversely in this situation. Whereas Kantian ethics focuses more so on our rationality and autonomy as the definition of us as moral beings, Utilitarianism is more concerned with the overall happiness and its promotion in the world. Kantian ethics considers more the action rather than its end while Utilitarian’s would be defined more as hedonistic yet egalitarian in nature.

In determining which of these two views on ethics would be considered more plausible, my main focus was guided by one of Kantian's principles: The Universal Law Version of The Moral Law. When the morality of an action or consequence is taken into consideration, applying the behaviors, intentions, and ends of the situation universally seemed to be the most effective manner in making this determination. I first considered Utilitarianism, but ultimate happiness cannot always be the indicative factor. For this reason I was sold on Kantian ethics. I feel like for this reason Kantian ethics is less popular than Utilitarianism. The idea that one should act always in good faith is one that for this world of humans is nearly impossible to follow. Yet, I feel that that's what makes it the best judge of morality. If the reasons an action that some would consider to be good are not in good faith than the action itself is unethical. This is Kant's belief. Although I do not totally agree with that I can say that applying the intent of an action to other situations if considered unethical can yield bad results more often than would a good intention.

All good intentions are ethical.

All self-sacrifices are good intentions.

All self-sacrifices are ethical.

kant vs utilitarianism

Damon Land

Ethics: Kantian vs Utilitarianism

 

 

Kant was a firm believer in both autonomy, and rationality. He believed that good will is the only unqualified good thing; that motivation behind the action is all that matters, regardless of the results. Basic example: 

You see a beggar on the road claiming to be homeless, you give him money with the intention of helping not only him, but the world. The man, however, uses the money to buy a knife to kill dozens of people.

In this instance, Kantian ethics would say you did the right thing, because though the results were bad, your intentions were good. Basis of Kantian ethics is to do what is best for humankind, even if it means to sacrifice your own wellbeing.

 

On the other hand, utilitarianism is a hedonistic view on ethics that states that we as human, are in pursuit of maximum pleasure. Maximum pleasure, however, can be achieved by not only pursuing just pleasure, but also by minimizing pain.

I certainly find utilitarianism to be much more plausible being that I find more flaws in Kantian ethics. The main issue with Kantian ethics is that it requires a person to do what is best morally, regardless of one’s self. My issues with this are that for one, morals are up for interpretation, and what may be morally correct to one, may not be to another. To set a specific code of morals, is an infringement on one’s autonomy, something Kant is actually against. I strongly believe that someone (humanity) can do ANYTHING out of their own self-interest. I feel, everything someone does, is for themselves. If this same beggar from the previous example was to ask me for money, me giving him the money would not be for him, it would be firstly for me. I say this because if giving this man the money didn’t affect me (in which giving him the money didn’t make me feel like a better person), I wouldn’t have done it. The act of giving, is a self-pleasing act, that happens to coincides (most times) with another person being pleased. Kant believes that self-interest comes secondary to doing what is morally correct.

Without going into the different levels of pleasure and pain, I do feel that utilitarianism is in many ways plausible. I do believe that people strive for pleasure and seek to eliminate pain. I feel that,  though Mills sees it as degrading to humans, it IS almost like an instinct that we have as humans. While pain isn’t strictly limited to physical, a good example is:

A stove has been on for a few minutes cooking food. You accidently touch this stove with your hand, and immediately, without any thought, you pull your hand away from the stove.

Why is this? If not instinct, what makes us move our hand away from the stove? If not instinct what is it? Surely you did not think, “hey, this hurts, let me move my hand.” It was a natural response. Why do humans seek sexual interaction? Surely, sex is a form of pleasure for most. How about financial success? Yet another form of pleasure. But what exactly is defined as pleasure? Dictionary defines it as, “a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment.” Basically, whatever you strive or live for, is pleasure, and as long as you’re living, you’re in pursuit of pleasure. While the counter to this maybe suicide, I also believe that people who commit suicide may not all be psychopaths. Victims of suicide maybe in pursuit of happiness still, if either 1) they believe in life as an avenue to another life or eternal life, or 2) they feel like their greatest pain, is in fact life itself, and to eliminate this, would actually be a pursuit at again, maximizing pleasure.

 Barbara

1.All actions are selfish
2.To give, is an action
3.Giving is Selfish
 

Kant vs Utilitarianism

The two ideas in ethics that we currently have discussed are Kant ethics and Utilitarianism. These two ideas our different by the way they define us as people. Kant defines us as persons through our rationality and autonomy. Utilitarianism defines us as persons with desire to avoid pain and seek pleasure. It even goes as far as saying that we should do our best to increase the pleasure of everybody else around. I feel that the idea of Utilitarianism is a better moral code to live by because it is something that we as humans do so well. Utilitarianism also uses reasoning to decide what is morally acceptable and what is not. Kant has the view of perfection and that we should all strive for it but I feel that is an impossible goal because to be perfect in a sense would make you not human. As human we look for any way we can to achieve pleasure for ourself in whatever form we can. Sometimes however we get so caught up I the act of pleasure we do not bother to think about if it is moral or not. But in some instances there are times that give us pleasure and are morally okay. The same thing goes for our outlook on pain. We will  do whatever we to avoid any pain. 

Barbra Argument
All things that increase pleasure of people around you are morally good. 
All acts of kindness increase the pleasure of people around you. 
All acts of kindness are morally good.

As we learned thus far in the course there are many conceptions of human nature. Kantian Ethics was based off of Kant’s beliefs and what he calls his Supreme Principle of Morality. Kant believed that what defines us, as people are our rationality and autonomy. According to Kant each of our actions reflect one or more maxims. Kant states that, “duties of justice are the most important of our duties.”  What matters most with Kant is the intention of an action, your motive behind what you are doing. It isn’t just about doing what is right but for the right reason.  On the other hand Utilitarianism is the belief in which a person is defined by their ability to express pain and pleasure. With this conception one generally wants to maximize the pleasure and minimize the pain. It is often thought of as the Greatest Happiness Principle meaning whichever situation leads to the greatest happiness wins. Here the consequences determine if a situation is ethical.

            The more plausible of the two theories to me is Kantian Ethics. I feel that this is so because if everyone has good intentions and wants what is right then life would be easier.  If people treated others in a way in which they wanted to be treated then it would eliminate bad in a sense. Kantian Ethics forms a respect for people by allowing the human life to have value; this is why no one rational or autonomous should be treated badly for the means of another human’s happiness. Kantian Ethics believes in the duty of promoting the happiness of others. If everyone helped each other then life would run smoothly.

           

Barbara

1.     All thoughts promoting others are ethical

2.     All Good intentions are thoughts promoting others

Therefore all good intentions