Kantianism Vs Utilitarianism

Coming from a military background, it is not surprising that I find Kantianism as the preferred method of ethics. In my experience, I find that right and wrong, as absolute truths, are existent and necessary to guide the morality of society. While Utilitarianism has promising overtones, I feel that it allows room and almost promotes relativism, which is not a supported social philosophy. Although Utilitarianism places the categorical imperative on the happiness of the larger population, Kantianism places the morality upon each individual by claiming that all things should be done from the "good will" of the individual. In this essay, the societal philosophies of Kantianism and Utilitarianism will be compared and show that the individual morality,

Utilitarianism is solidified upon pleasure and the belief that there is no greater achievement than happiness. However, there are times that the happiness of the group can come at the expense of the happiness of oneself. And while just pursuing pleasure could seem to be abstract, there is a morality that is laid within the philosophy. The first idea that is promoted is known as Act Utilitarianism. But the morals are relative not only to the individual but to the situation as well. Boyd asks the question in the textbook, Christian Ethics, and Moral Philosophy: An Introduction to Issues and Approaches “is it permissible to break the conventional rule of morality, if you know that everyone will benefit from it (Pg. 130)?” Explaining that someone who has robbed a family of the use to buy needed medicine may not be turned into the police (Boyd, 130). Secondly, is Mills Rule Utilitarianism in which attempts to categorize happiness. After all, there are different degrees of happiness. An example of this is an animalistic view of happiness. Mills objection rule states that “if pleasure is the only basis for making moral judgments, then the human has been reduced to the level of a mere pleasure-seeking animal (Boyd, 135).” The Robin Hood approach and animalistic approach of pleasure and Happiness, according to Mill, “is a, ‘theory fit only for swine’ (Boyd, 135).” In converse, Kantianism is an approach that places the individualistic responsibility to the moral duty of good will (Boyd, 110). While the definition of “good” has been argued throughout the ages, Kant believes that only the unqualified is a good thing (Boyd, 110). Meaning that only the intentions, which drive our decisions for actions, can be considered good (I disagree with the idea of good, but another time). Unlike Utilitarianism, there are checks and