Utilitarianism And Kantian Duty Ethics Analysis

There are a variety of ethical theories that put forth compelling and merit-based arguments. The two that I will highlight in this paper are utilitarianism and Kantian duty ethics. The leading proponents of utilitarianism were English philosophers John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Utilitarians were essentially social reformers, through their support of suffrage for women, abolition of slavery, and other social issues. The basic foundation of Utilitarianism can be explained through the Greatest Happiness Principle, which is simply laid out as follows:

Happiness = pleasure, and the absence of pain

Unhappiness = pain, and the absence of please

Mill explained this principle by saying “Actions are right in proportion

The first reason why utilitarianism reins supreme is that the theory is intuitive. Utilitarianism links pleasure and happiness with morality. This approach is appropriate considering our common beliefs and thoughts about morality in making decisions. For example, utilitarianism can provide an intuitive account as to why we view murder as wrong: the claim that “murder is wrong” ultimately comes down to pain and unhappiness. Despite the moral differences that people possess, most would agree that pleasure is good and pain is bad. Secondly, utilitarianism is clear-cut. Unlike Kant’s theory, the foundation of utilitarianism is not based on vague thoughts or abstract principles. The theory is clear-cut in the sense that during the decision-making process, you simply assign plus points to what will bring you happiness and minus points to what will bring you pain. This straightforward method allows for someone to make a decision using simple arithmetic and avoid the ambiguity of theories like Kant’s. Professionals in fields such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology utilize this clear-cut method. The third reason why utilitarianism is the best ethical theory is the flexibility it provides. As opposed to Kant’s theory, utilitarianism doesn’t deem certain

The first criticism of utilitarianism that puts forth an interesting point is that although the practice of stealing and lying would lead to bad consequences, resulting in a loss of security and trustworthiness, it is not assured that lying to avoid embarrassment or stealing from a wealthy man would not have good consequences, and therefore could be permissible or even required under utilitarian thought. The premise of this argument is interesting and certainly makes one think about whether or not such actions are condoned by utilitarianism. Utilitarians would argue that the practice of such acts would result in a loss of security and trustworthiness. In order to address the objection to not permitting the actions of stealing and lying, utilitarians have promoted a brand of utilitarianism known as “rule” utilitarianism. This type of utilitarianism condones a certain act on a specific occasion to be considered right or wrong based on whether or not it is in accordance with or in violation of a rule, and that rule is deemed useful or not based on the consequences of its general