Compare And Contrast Utilitarianism And Kantian Ethics

Imagine being faced with an important decision that affects a group of people. In order to make this decision you would have to decide which choice is wrong and which choice is right. There are two notable theories that believe a single moral principle provides the best way to achieve the best outcome to a moral judgement. These theories are utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. Utilitarianism can be defined as: the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians seem to believe that humans only have two desires, or motivations: happiness and pain. They want as much happiness as possible and the least amount of pain as any other action. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that whether it is right, depends solely on its consequences. On the contrary, Kantian ethics value every individual rather than the majority. This theory holds that every human has rights and an action is wrong if it violates them. Kant’s second version of the categorical imperative states “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” (O’Neill 400) This states that you can not use people in a way that they would not consent to. Kantian ethics also state that

First we will start with the historical example of the execution of Jesus. Pontius Pilate was put into a situation where a large crowd had attempted to persuade him that Jesus should be killed instead of a convicted murderer, even though Jesus had done nothing wrong. The majority won and he was killed. The Utilitarians can justify this action because the majority gained happiness from this. On the other hand, those who support Kant’s theory will argue that Jesus had done nothing wrong and his right were clearly violated making the action