Deontology Versus Kant's Ideas

I am going to argue why it is okay to tell as small lie to a friend in order to spare their feelings. I am going to touch on two ethical models, these being, Utilitarianism and Deontology. The individual that is a Utilitarian is Jeremy Bentham and the Deontologist is Immanuel Kant. I will be sharing their ideas and explaining why Jeremy Bentham’s ideas are more defensible than Kant’s ideas. I believe that if you are a good friend, it is important for you to keep the most optimal happiness between your friends and yourself. With Bentham's theory, Utilitarianism, the overall goal is to make the most people happy (Bentham 1). If the storyline of a lie is what makes the most people happy, Benthem says it is okay to lie. For Kant, a person is never

He states that in no case should you lie (Bennett 2). What Kant focuses on is deontology, this focuses on duty-based ethics. What duty-based ethics consists of is, doing what you should do for the right reasons, your moral obligations (Bennett 2). Sometimes people will do something they know is right to do but, for the wrong reasons. Someone may save someone’s life because they know they will get money out of it while they should be doing it to save that person with or without a reward. Kant believes that lying is wrong and immoral for anyone in any case, no excuses. Kant believes in a good will (Bennett 5). He believes that happiness cannot be achieved through a bad will. A good will must consist of truthfulness, doing the right thing and doing it because you care to help. Kant believes that along with having a good will, you should be morally good. Being “morally good” has to do with following the moral law. Under any circumstance, a person should never corrupt the moral law (Bennett 2). Everyone should live their life knowing and living by this moral law, never making mistakes and always making the right decisions for the right reasons. With the scenario given, telling a small lie to a friend, Kant believes that lying is against the moral law. Bentham wanted to optimize happiness, in that case lying was the answer. Whereas, Kant says that people deserve more than that, each person deserves to know the truth and should

Kant’s ideas follow a set of rules and ideas whereas, Bentham’s ideas are based on maximizing happiness. Bentham’s thoughts are much more defensible that Kant’s and I can better relate and back up Bentham’s Theory of Morality. A theory of morality should not be based on a set of rules and regulations that everyone follows, that is my problem with Kant’s theory. He doesn’t focus on making people happy he just focuses on doing the right thing for the right reason (Bennett 3). If you look deeper into this statement, he is still focusing on himself, doing what is right for the best outcome and what is most beneficial for himself. To me, happiness is more important than anything. If I were in the situation, I would say yes, it is okay to tell a small lie to a friend in order to spare their feelings. I see keeping a friendship and good relationship more important than following a set of “moral laws.” Telling the truth should not be written or held under any sort of law or way of life. A moral person will want to optimize happiness as much as possible as well as know their limits on lying. There are may circumstances in which I agree with Bentham’s theory. I believe that some lies are beneficial to a friend, as I touched on before, you may want to surprise someone, technically, you would be telling a lie. An example like this is done through good intentions, to make that person happier overall. I do