What is Right? What defines a morally right action? How can we as people distinguish what actions to take in different situations? Kantianism and Utilitarianism both offer frameworks to determine morally right action, however these moral theories function differently. Utilitarianism offers the Greatest Happiness Principle as a framework for moral decision making. Thus Utilitarianism deems an action can be deemed morally right when it can be said both that the action provides the greatest possible amount of happiness, and provides that happiness for the greatest amount of people. An example of this principle could be military service where individuals sacrifice their individual happiness by sleeping in the dirt and experiencing traumatic events
…show more content…
Utilitarianism has far too wide of a scope to be utilized effectively in specific situations. Utilitarianism is unrelenting in its quest to maintain the happiness of the whole at the cost of individual happiness. Utilitarianism’s willingness to sacrifice individual happiness is its fatal flaw, as the sacrifice of individual happiness leads to unhappiness on the whole. I think this approach is misguided as, morally, we have a duty to ourselves as well as to others and with Kantianism we can better serve ourselves while also not neglecting others. Though Kantianism may have hiccups in some situations, on the whole it provides a more clear and structured guideline for decision making. Categorical imperatives simplify the decision making process, and the logical inconsistencies occasionally found can be solved by logic on the part of the practitioner. Depending on your place in society, I believe Utilitarianism and Kantianism work differently. For the common man Kantianism works most effectively, while for those higher up, Utilitarianism provides the decision making criteria to make the more morally right …show more content…
I believe that mankind is inherently inclined to be self-serving. We are only animals that have certain base instincts that will override our dedication to Kantianism, Utilitarianism, or any other ethical theory. We can only seek to follow them to the best of our ability. When a killer comes to me and asks where my brother is when he is right behind me, I will lie, even if killing my brother would provide the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. Morality breaks when it comes into contact with the real world because the real world is not moral. People lie, cheat, and steal because morality has no meaning unless everyone subscribes to it. No matter how much you give to charity, some children are still going to starve. No matter how many moral saints we have in the world there is an equal number of moral sinners working against them. Humanity exists, and will continue to exist, in a morally gray area. We can do nothing to improve it, we can only keep it from getting worse. Kantianism is better in the short run because it allows for more flexibility in decision making, but Utilitarianism guides decisions to create happiness in the long term on a large scale. One theory is more effective depending on the specific circumstances surrounding the issue. In the end, we ought to do our best. We pick an ethical theory that we can do the most good with and
Utilitarianism has far too wide of a scope to be utilized effectively in specific situations. Utilitarianism is unrelenting in its quest to maintain the happiness of the whole at the cost of individual happiness. Utilitarianism’s willingness to sacrifice individual happiness is its fatal flaw, as the sacrifice of individual happiness leads to unhappiness on the whole. I think this approach is misguided as, morally, we have a duty to ourselves as well as to others and with Kantianism we can better serve ourselves while also not neglecting others. Though Kantianism may have hiccups in some situations, on the whole it provides a more clear and structured guideline for decision making. Categorical imperatives simplify the decision making process, and the logical inconsistencies occasionally found can be solved by logic on the part of the practitioner. Depending on your place in society, I believe Utilitarianism and Kantianism work differently. For the common man Kantianism works most effectively, while for those higher up, Utilitarianism provides the decision making criteria to make the more morally right …show more content…
I believe that mankind is inherently inclined to be self-serving. We are only animals that have certain base instincts that will override our dedication to Kantianism, Utilitarianism, or any other ethical theory. We can only seek to follow them to the best of our ability. When a killer comes to me and asks where my brother is when he is right behind me, I will lie, even if killing my brother would provide the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. Morality breaks when it comes into contact with the real world because the real world is not moral. People lie, cheat, and steal because morality has no meaning unless everyone subscribes to it. No matter how much you give to charity, some children are still going to starve. No matter how many moral saints we have in the world there is an equal number of moral sinners working against them. Humanity exists, and will continue to exist, in a morally gray area. We can do nothing to improve it, we can only keep it from getting worse. Kantianism is better in the short run because it allows for more flexibility in decision making, but Utilitarianism guides decisions to create happiness in the long term on a large scale. One theory is more effective depending on the specific circumstances surrounding the issue. In the end, we ought to do our best. We pick an ethical theory that we can do the most good with and