Utilitarianism vs Kant's Categorical Imperative: A Comparative Analysis

Moral decision-making constitutes an important part of the everyday human life. In this paper, I will examine and contrast Utilitarianism and Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative, both, which provide people with a moral structure, and how the issue of etiquettes relates to Kantian Theory. It is important to note that both the theories have their advantages and drawbacks, thus to enable one to make a methodical decision, it is important to understand the basic principles of each. However, in this paper there will be a main focus on Kantian Categorical argument and then discussing the issue of etiquettes.

Immanuel Kant, one of the most famous western philosopher epitomized the Enlightenment’s faith in reason, the scope and limits of which

It cannot be fulfilled: its fulfillment can at best be no more than approximated. Imperatives are commands. Of commands, there are those that command hypotheticals and those that command categorically. Hypothetical Imperatives have the general form: If you want 'A,’ then you ought to do 'B. ' The 'ought ' in these hypothetical imperatives has their foundation in our desires and wants – our goals and objectives. Ultimately, our goals are grounded in self-interest. A Categorical Imperative has the general form: do 'A ', it is not conditioned. For Kant, there is only one imperative that commands us unconditionally and that is the Moral universal law: always act in ways such that you could will that the maxim of your action become a universal

If a person’s motive for action passes the categorical imperative, his action is permissible. One of the major variations of the categorical imperative is the “means / ends” formulation which makes an important case about Kant’s view of humanity, that you ought not to treat fellow human beings as a means to an end. In other words, you shouldn’t use people to get what you want. On the contrary, in utilitarianism, you may use whatever means (act on whatever motives) are necessary to achieve an end, the sole purpose of which is to increase happiness. So, it doesn’t matter why a person engaged in a particular action, but only that the end result is an augmentation in