Difference Between Kantianism And Utilitarianism

In Buddhist ethics there are two dominate Western ethical theories that raise conflict between the values of the two theories. These two Western ethical theories are Utilitarianism and Kantianism. Kantianism and Utilitarianism have two different views of right and wrong. The Utilitarianism theory bases its understanding of peoples right action on consequences. The good actions of people promote happiness in their lives. In contrast, the Kantianism theory does not think consequences matter. People are motivated to perform actions not thinking about the consequences that may be associated with their actions. Kantianism is different from Utilitarianism in that there is the Categorical Imperative, which is a form of his universal law. The formula of the universal law states, “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature” (Blackburn, 120). The meaning of the Categorical Imperative is for us to evaluate are motivations for out actions. What Kant is trying to say is that we should be motivated to do things that are good for everyone, not just ourselves. We should not have a purpose to do things; it should just be a moral

The Kantianism theory looks at the maximum good. Looking at the ideal life of humans it includes happiness, joy, achievements, love, friendship, and activities. The theory describes this as internal pleasure. Taken together all the types of pleasures a person can calculate what actions can produce the most pleasure and the least amount of pain. This comes back to the notion of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In contrast with the Utilitarianism theory on pleasure, it sees it differently. Critics say that the pleasures include friendship, achievement, art, music, Socratic conversation, and discovery. These two theories have different views of the qualities of pleasure and what it