Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
utilitarian theory and kantian theory
utilitarian theory and kantian theory
ANALYSIS ON KANT AND UTILITARIAN
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: utilitarian theory and kantian theory
1. Introduction
(Beginning unfinished) In this paper, I will introduce two arguments against Classical Utilitarianism and explain why they are compelling and tenable objections. I will then anticipate how a non-utilitarian Consequentialist might try to avoid these problems. In the last section, I will use the example of poverty relief to explain why Kantian Ethics immunes from the harsh criticisms faced by Utilitarian.
2. Two Objections to Classical Utilitarianism
Classical Utilitarianism is the doctrine that an act is morally right if and only if it maximizes overall (actual or expected) utility, and each person’s utility is counted impartially in the calculation. The last part of this definition implies that people are morally bound to be absolutely impartial in all their actions, and such implication is problematic.
(1) The Charge that Classical Utilitarianism is Too-Demanding
One popular objection to Classical Utilitarianism is that it is too demanding. Suppose person A has two choices to spend her weekend: she can either watch movies at home, or work at an NGO to save vulnerable people from suffering. According to Classical Utilitarianism, this person is morally obligated, not simply encouraged, to take the latter choice and to work as many hours as she can, because the overall reduction in pain of those suffering far exceeds the utility gained by this person from watching movies. Similarly, person B is morally required to resign from his own job if his doing so results in someone else’s greater amount of happiness gained from having the job. In these contexts, Classical Utilitarianism is too demanding in that it demands more of people than they have sufficient reasons to give. In other words, the doctrine demands people to...
... middle of paper ...
... not condemn such action. Kant would conclude that behaviors such as buying a movie ticket are unintentional actions that are neutral in moral status. After all, unintentional action is associated with neither good nor bad intentions, and is neither praiseworthy nor condemnable.
Kantian approach to poverty problem is also less demanding in terms of scale. There are millions of poor people living in hundreds of different countries, and Utilitarianism requires us to continue offer our help until every single of them no longer suffers from poverty. Kantian ethics is not that demanding. As long as one has a good will and incorporates that will into his action, no matter how much contributions he ends up making, he has done something morally good.
Works Cited
Mill, John Stuart. "What Utilitarianism Is." Utilitarianism. Raleigh, N.C.: Alex Catalogue, 199. 17. Print.
Utilitarianism, or consequential ethics, is an ethical ideology proposed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill that “argues the proper course of action is one that maximizes a positive effect, such as “happiness”, “welfare”, or the ability to live according to personal preferences” (Baggini et
Utilitarianism is a movement in ethics which began in the late eighteenth centaury and is primarily associated with the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham and was later adapted and fully developed by John Stuart Mill in the ninetieth century. . The theory states that we should try to achieve ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics. Teleological theories of ethics look at the consequences to decide whether an action is right or wrong. Utilitarianism is defined as a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of it consequences: specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible
Kant’s morally theory is the most superior because it universally applies its self to everyone. Kant has multiple moral maxims that can be applied to any given situation on any given day. If a person ever need to know what they were doing was morally right or wrong they and look at this moral theory.
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
In this paper I will argue that Utilitarianism is a weak argument. According to John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism is defined as the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Happiness is pleasure and absence of pain (Mill, 114). At first glance the Utility perspective seems logical, however it often conflicts with justice and morality. I will begin by presenting the idea that good consequences do not always determine the right thing to do. Then I will provide the counterargument that utilitarians can bite the bullet. Next I will explain that Utilitarianism is too demanding for anyone to live by, and finally provide the counterarguments from the Utilitarianism perspective.
...nces. Kantianism focuses on the motivation of actions, has clear and distinct set of universal rules, and is morally logical. On the other hand, Utilitarianism relies on the consequences of an action, has no set universal laws as each action is assessed on an individual basis, and morality is based on the results of the assessment. Because of these reasons, I believe that Kantianism is the more ethically plausible theory of the two.
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
The difference between the two comes to Kantian theory doesn 't account for the consequences and rule utilitarianism does. For Kant, it doesn 't matter what happens as a result of your will and duty as the law as it doesn 't compromise the sovereignty of other rational beings. The rule utilitarianism main goal is to maximize collective human happiness and welfare, and unlike Kant, how believes that one should under no circumstance breaks, your own Maxim thus severing the like between Duty and Will. Rule utilitarianism allows more flexibility in people 's actions and behaviors
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
As a deontological, or duty-based, theory, Kantianism is focus on intent. If the intent behind an action is morally praiseworthy and fits into the categorical imperative, it must be ethical. The categorical imperative is the main element in Kantianism, and it states that you must act as if it was universal law. This is similar to the Golden Rule of “treat others how you wish to be treated” and is a way to determine whether an act is morally praiseworthy. Kantian ethics are different from utilitarianism in that happiness is not a
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
Utilitarianism is the view of considering everyone’s benefit as equally important versus only considering my own. For any action, the morally correct thing to do is cause the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure or benefit for the greatest number possible; while at the same time causing the least amount of pain or unhappiness for the smallest number possible.
I see utilitarianism as a powerful and persuasive approach to ethics in philosophy. There are varieties of views discussed but utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally correct action is the action that produces the most good. In its simplest form it is maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain. There are a few ways to think about this claim. One good way to think about is that this theory is a form of consequentialism. The right action is understood basically in terms of consequences produced. The utilitarian view is one thought to maximize the overall good; that good being the good of others as well as the good of ones self. Utilitarianism is also not partial. Everybody 's happiness counts the same. This version of the good is one that must maximize the good for everyone. My good counts just the same as anyone else 's good.
A disadvantage of utilitarianism is that it fails to acknowledge the rights of each person, thus advocating injustice acts. People can suffer from immediate consequences of an action fulfilled by being “utilitarian”. Utilitarianism ignores the importance of moral obligation. It is still our duty to decide upon a wrong or right act and not take in consideration the amount of good or evil it produces. Lastly, moral dilemmas only happen because either quality or quantity of “good” or “pleasure” is in doubt. A person deciding whether to do a moral act has to take in consideration the maximization of happiness and pleasure to the
Utilitarianism is the theory that one ought to maximize the happiness and minimize the unhappiness of as many people (or sentient beings) as possible (Nina Rosenstand). According to Utilitarianism, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to