Utilitarianism Vs Kantianism

Utilitarianism and Kantianism take polarizing views on what we, as humans, should define as morally valuable and morally correct. In this paper, I will argue that Utilitarianism undermines the humanity principle and Kantianism illuminates necessary values when determining action. Additionally, I will argue that both ideologies do fall short when determining in a general sense what is morally valuable. Before arguing for my thesis, however, I will explain both Mill and Kant’s theories respectively. Then I will present a case that tests the plausibility of the two theories and offer what I take to be the best response in the case from the perspective of the individual involved. This will arrive at my final argument that there are flaws in each …show more content…
His theory of value is based upon the idea of good will and that nothing else is good besides good will without some form of qualification. Kant’s theory of right action is in belief that we have a duty to act in respect for the “moral flow” which can also be known as the categorical imperative. The second formulation of the categorical imperative is crucial to understanding his theory of right action and value. As humans, it is said that we have inherent value that excludes us from being used as means to an end. Being used as a means to an end can be described in modern terms as to be “used” meaning that one person would take advantage of another for personal again to whatever the said “end” or goal may be. Kant focuses on the intentions associated with the action, opposed to the consequences of said …show more content…
In my opinion, under the circumstances given, I believe that the doctor did the right thing. My opinion in this case mirrors my ideology when discussing the two schools of thought as well. For example, in these particular circumstances, if the doctor were to have administered a blood transfusion to a patient who has expressed in sound mind that she was not going to allow the small procedure to occur and did it anyways, he would be prioritizing his own ends ahead of the patient. In my opinion, just as Kant would, I am assuming that all of our ends are equal. When choosing to do this action, the doctor is essentially taking advantage of the patient for his own peace of mind, to know that he did everything he could. Someone who is refusing medical care cannot be forced to take it. As her ends are just as valuable as his, then the “pleasure” of either party involved would be balanced half and half. The loss of one end would be equivalent to the loss of the other which in turn debunks Mill’s theory of