Comparing Kant And Utilitarianism Theory

Decent Essays
This principle is diametrically different from the Utilitarianism theory, where Mill allows someone to die if this sacrifice results in a greater measure of happiness for other people, for example dedicating one's life to save six other lives. For Kant, this situation is unacceptable and there is never an excuse for breaking universal laws. According to Kant, only a categorical imperative is an unconditional order, which leaves us with no choice to change an act if we give up our intentions and our action cannot be considered as accidental, because it is made under the law. However, Kant claims that, “man and generally any rational being exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all …show more content…
After all, it is just laws that describe what is right and fundamentally moral. Rights established by authorities higher than the average person. Let's go back to the question of telling the truth. The law orders "do not lie" and it is a good ban, because if all people did not lie, then human life would be free from the consequences of lying. Therefore, Kant says, “(…)immediately I realize that I may want to lie, but never a universal right to lie; for, according to such a law, there would be virtually no promise, because in vain I would pretend to others that I would do so in the future when they would not believe it anyway, and if they had even made it reckless, they would give me a wet token” (Popkin 67). In order to base our actions on reason and duty and to follow the categorical imperative, people cannot lie because a lie cannot become a universal law. If the lie became a common law, then human relations based on trust and keeping promises would not make sense. Where then lies the problem? Why the attainment of such a state is so difficult? The key word is "everyone". Unfortunately, people are imperfect, and for them always tell the truth, does not lie in their nature. On the other hand, if we think about it, is always telling the truth always a moral procedure, as Kant claims? What to say about the situation when a friend asks if we like her new dress, but in our opinion, the dress is in a terrible color and a bad cut? We know that the truth will hurt your friend and perhaps offend us, but after all the law says, "Do not lie". This is a relatively dull example, but in life, we encounter many more serious situations, when a "lie" would seem justified. For example, a family member unexpectedly becomes seriously ill, the family takes him to the doctor, does medical exams, and finally turns out that he has cancer. Cancer is

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Kant believes that every person has rights and their own autonomy, so lying to them is treating them as a mere thing. There is no valid reason to lie about this action other than the fact Pat most likely regrets it, and fears losing Chris. Therefore, this maxim cannot be applied as a universal law, because it is rationally incoherent to make a maxim a law that is based off of self-interest. Since it cannot be applied universally, and telling Chris the truth would have greater moral worth, it is concluded that according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative Pat should tell Chris that she cheated out of respect and to follow her duty to him as his significant…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He also argues that a completely ethical person will not be conflicted about his ethical choice, opposite of Kant, who thinks that a person can make an ethical choice while desiring the wrong alternative. In fact, he prefers that, because it shows that the person is doing his duty, not the action just because it makes him happy. Kant might defend himself by saying that it would be too easy for a person to succumb to selfish desires if he is gaining happiness from his virtuous acts, and any action is not moral if there are any external motivators, but I will show how this defense fails near the end of the paper. Kant and Aristotle have very different opinions on what makes a person virtuous and what defines a virtuous act. My thoughts on morality line up more with Aristotle’s.…

    • 1242 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    We lying may not mean ‘it is acceptable to lie under any circumstances.' We might only accept lying when it will lead to a good result. For example, the maxim might be ‘it is acceptable to lie when it saves one's life. This rule seems possible to be universalized. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that ‘we should never lie as an absolute moral rule.…

    • 846 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For example lying is never right whatever the circumstances at there, For Kant, morality is a principles for everyone including the one who lies and because we cannot lie to anyone, which should become a universal law, we all need to obey. But if we lie for saving or for a good ending, it is another question and hard to decide it is right or wrong. Reason demands us that we never tell a lie otherwise telling lies would become common among people and therefore, it is unreasonable to tell a lie in any given circumstance. (Sandel) He argues that our moral rules do not actually depend on our desires rather our moral rules are objective and based upon categorical “oughts.” However, Kant’s ethics is conflict with his own disciple Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer, though a Kantian, criticizes…

    • 1682 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    When he [Kant] begins to deduce from this precept [i.e. CI] any of the actual duties of morality, he fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur. Here Mill considers of consequences in moral action, as we will see, Mill’s consequentialism rather than Utilitarianism is the direct charge made to Kant, these two notions are not same, the utiitlirms principle is seek happiness and avoid pain, precisely moral action would be conducted on maximizing happiness and minimizing…

    • 1235 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Blaise Pascal's Argument

    • 1109 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Whenever this standards are held, what the person is doing in that scenario is proving a universal moral law. C.S. Lewis proclaims that do not have to explain why certain things are considered morally good or bad because we just naturally know it. Lewis also went on to explains another reason why there must be moral law. He explains that if there is no moral law then all moral judgments would be meaningless if there was not Moral Law.…

    • 1109 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Since we do not have enough information as to what the spelunkers do outside of this situation, it is logical to argue letting the most people live is the best end to the situation. Instead of the alternative, letting everyone die just to avoid committing a murder, especially since the large man will die in either outcome. Another flaw in Kant’s argument is our ability to redefine our maxims. If we allow ourselves to have broad maxims such as “never committing murder”, Kant’s argument remains strong, but if we redefine that maxim to “never commit murder unless it is for the greatest possible good” then it becomes fragile. Some may even argue without the ability to redefine maxims the world would become more chaotic.…

    • 768 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Kant basically tells us that using people is wrong for both moral and real-world reasons. A person should not reject this rule since it would be upsetting to others. If a person gets a reputation for trying to use people, this will not help him in the long run, and it may outweigh the short term gain made by successfully using someone the first time. If you don't want something done to you that is damaging according to the universal law, then simply don't commit the act. Using people as objects causes losses in the form of time, money, and reliability.…

    • 837 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    A utilitarian might agree that there are more cases than not in which candor is the most moral choice, nevertheless in this case they would lie for it produces more utility. For Kantians, the issue is more complex due to the categorical imperative. Telling the truth is usually assumed to be a part of the categorical imperative, and because of this lying would not be permitted under any circumstances. A Kantian would have to tell the truth to the murder, resulting the murder of their dear friend. Kant would find no fault in this.…

    • 1645 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    We must assume our beliefs are innocent until proven guilty by Good Reason, and that most of our beliefs are probably close enough to the truth, otherwise they would not have aided in the survival and been selected for by evolution. The best argument against moral realism does not even need evolution to make us rightfully worry, but the inclusion of evolution weakens the argument, leading to skepticism again. Our disposition to make a distinction without a difference is a serious moral dilemma, but has no bearing on the current discussion since we are addressing the problem of evolution in relation to realism. The problem here is not in the content of the argument itself, but in the very…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays