Comparing Kantianism And Utilitarianism Theory

995 Words 4 Pages
Subsequent to Aristotle’s ancient centered view of ethics, that has a focal point of virtue ethics, which defined ethics in a person’s character development, and a broad picture of human life. Modern ethics emerged two-thousand years later. Modern ethics believes morality is based on the action a person takes rather than a person’s character. Overall, modern ethics give us two “act base theories” the Kantianism and Utilitarianism, both define ethics in a form of action. In this paper I will be discussing the beliefs of Kantianism.
In the 18th century, Philosopher Immanuel Kant a proponent for Kantianism ethics opposed the utilitarianism theory, who states the end results of happiness is more important than the means in how to obtain it. Unlike
…show more content…
Under the Kantianism law this moral act would violate the deontological principal and will not be considered an act of good will, regardless if the monetary donations benefits lives. Their action would not matter because the source or reason of the act of good will is for selfish gain.
The Kantianism theory can also protect life in real-life situations, for example the deontological principal of ethics can be seen within America’s society the protects the people under discriminatory laws, so no person could mistreat or endanger anyone under the basis of race or familial belief system.
On the other hand, I believe that the Kantianism theory has several flaws and cannot stand to the perfect standard that the Kantianism theory expects. One of the flaws is that we cannot see a person’s true reason for their act of good will. The source of the action is a subjective thought and can be concealed. During the presidential campaigns, candidates are making promises, and expressing their interest for the country’s well-being and once one is selected they break promises claiming that in doing so will benefit the people better and accomplish other goals that are more

Related Documents