Kant Vs Utilitarianism

1790 Words 8 Pages
One would need to know what the extraterrestrial’s ethical principal system was and how it could be applied to human beings. If you look at someone like Immanuel Kant and the way he looks at ethics, he would obviously be skeptical about human beings adopting the extraterrestrial system. Kant already believes that the existing system is sufficient enough and therefore there would be no need to adopt a new one. According to Kant, measuring the morality of the intention of an action is much more important than the consequences that are created. Kant would likely debate that assuming the Extraterrestrial system would mean that all human being would have to abide by the system.
Kant always said that each person should be the police of their own
…show more content…
On the other hand, utilitarianism is fundamentally based on examining the consequences of an action. It is about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If a doctor, for example, recognizes that a patient is going to die if he or she is told the truth, the doctor may decide not to tell the patient the truth about his condition. In this case therefore, telling a lie would therefore depend on the consequences. If need be, then one can tell a lie. Kant would however disagree to this and would call the act immoral. Kant would say that one has to tell the truth whatever the consequences and have to deal with it later. The difference between Kantian and Utilitarianism is therefore based on such argument. The Kantian would not be interested on the consequences while the utilitarian would first look at the consequences of an action and would therefore base the morality of an action on its consequences. Kant, in contrast, insists on doing something good simply because it is …show more content…
I feel that rule utilitarianism is the best compared to act utilitarianism because it respects the rule of law and therefore avoids anarchy. Act utilitarianism is the belief that the act that brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people is morally right (Wellington, 2005). The outcome of an action therefore determines the morality of an action as far as the act utilitarianism is concerned. Depending on how useful the act has been to the greatest number of people, then the act is considered morally correct. In this case therefore, one can break a rule as long as it is for the greater good. A good example would be stealing food or medicine to save a life somewhere. This argument is however facing some challenges. Would it be right for example to kill a thief to save the community? The argument however continues and it depend on how people interpret

Related Documents