Comparing Kant And Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism and Kant are two branches of philosophy that differ greatly between them. The former evaluates the morality of an action depending on the consequences. Utilitarianism is mainly concerned with producing a greater amount of happiness over unhappiness. Considering how they evaluate the morality of an action, we can assume that utilitarian’s’ moral status is make up of individuals that do feel unhappiness as well as happiness. On the other hand, and the other one believes that actions are bad or good by themselves. Bear in mind that humans are not the only living creatures on earth that are capable of feeling emotions, so animals and maybe cognitive disabled are included. On the other hand, how Kant’s define moral status is more narrow. According to Kant, autonomy and rationality are the only two features we need in order to have moral status. This idea contradicts utilitarian’s view because clearly animal and cognitive disabled are not autonomous nor rational. They cannot be held accountant of their actions. The utilitarian approach takes a more widely approach which include all creatures that can fell happiness and unhappiness. This broad approach let them include cognitive disabled and animals because being rational and autonomous is not a requirement. However, to the utilitarian view, they have the same right that everyone else. If that wasn’t …show more content…
Kant believed that autonomy and rationality are the reason why we are part of a community. We have to be conscious of our decision as well as the consequences. Contrary to utilitarianism which try to include people even though they are not autonomous or rational. To them, being capable of feeling happiness is enough to be a part of a community. Both theories have pros and cons, but ultimately they provide us with new interesting that will help us develop the best theory to describe moral status and