Connor Bell
Professor Jennifer Matey
PHIL 1318
14 November 2017
Kantianism v. Utilitarianism
For centuries, philosophers have questioned what makes an action right or wrong. Founder of Kantianism, Immanuel Kant asserts that the moral worth of one’s action is dependent on whether or not one is motivated by duty, while founders of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill claim that an action’s moral worth relies on the amount of happiness it produces, and for how many people. It is significantly easier to find an action to be morally right according to Kantianism than according to Utilitarianism.
Suppose you notice a child drowning at the bottom of a pool and you jump in to save it, but by the time you swim down, retrieve the child, …show more content…
Kant defined duty as the necessity to act out of respect for the moral law, arguing that morality is based in rationality. Viewing morality through categorical imperatives, commands one must follow regardless of one’s desires, Kantians state that categorical imperatives are our moral obligations derived from pure reason. Kantianism emphasizes the fact that persons have intrinsic value with the categorical imperative that states that one must act so that you treat humanity as an end and never as a mere means. To Kant, persons are ends-in-ourselves in that we are rational and autonomous; we have the ability to set our own goals and take the steps to realize them. Kantianism imbues human beings with dignity and an absolute moral …show more content…
In order to understand this definition, one must understand that a maxim is a rule or principle of action and a universal law is something must always be done in similar situations. Thus in any situation, a Kantian would ask himself what his action’s maxim, the general rule of the action under consideration, is. For example, Haley is in in Hughes-Trigg market to buy a yogurt for breakfast when she realizes that her wallet is in her dorm room. She does not have time to go back to her room to get money before class starts, but she is very hungry. Haley notices that the employee working at the checkout counter in the Market is absorbed in a conversation and that she could easily put the yogurt in her pocket and head to class without anyone noticing. The action Haley is considering, taking a yogurt from the Market without paying for it, is stealing. By approving of the maxim of stealing, which Haley is doing by taking the yogurt, whether or not she admits it, Haley universalizes that action – saying that everyone should always steal. Haley would be saying that if she should be able to do it, then everyone should be able to do it. Thus arises a contradiction stealing is not universalizable. Thus, in this scenario, Kant is truly expressing that it is not fair to
Professor Jennifer Matey
PHIL 1318
14 November 2017
Kantianism v. Utilitarianism
For centuries, philosophers have questioned what makes an action right or wrong. Founder of Kantianism, Immanuel Kant asserts that the moral worth of one’s action is dependent on whether or not one is motivated by duty, while founders of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill claim that an action’s moral worth relies on the amount of happiness it produces, and for how many people. It is significantly easier to find an action to be morally right according to Kantianism than according to Utilitarianism.
Suppose you notice a child drowning at the bottom of a pool and you jump in to save it, but by the time you swim down, retrieve the child, …show more content…
Kant defined duty as the necessity to act out of respect for the moral law, arguing that morality is based in rationality. Viewing morality through categorical imperatives, commands one must follow regardless of one’s desires, Kantians state that categorical imperatives are our moral obligations derived from pure reason. Kantianism emphasizes the fact that persons have intrinsic value with the categorical imperative that states that one must act so that you treat humanity as an end and never as a mere means. To Kant, persons are ends-in-ourselves in that we are rational and autonomous; we have the ability to set our own goals and take the steps to realize them. Kantianism imbues human beings with dignity and an absolute moral …show more content…
In order to understand this definition, one must understand that a maxim is a rule or principle of action and a universal law is something must always be done in similar situations. Thus in any situation, a Kantian would ask himself what his action’s maxim, the general rule of the action under consideration, is. For example, Haley is in in Hughes-Trigg market to buy a yogurt for breakfast when she realizes that her wallet is in her dorm room. She does not have time to go back to her room to get money before class starts, but she is very hungry. Haley notices that the employee working at the checkout counter in the Market is absorbed in a conversation and that she could easily put the yogurt in her pocket and head to class without anyone noticing. The action Haley is considering, taking a yogurt from the Market without paying for it, is stealing. By approving of the maxim of stealing, which Haley is doing by taking the yogurt, whether or not she admits it, Haley universalizes that action – saying that everyone should always steal. Haley would be saying that if she should be able to do it, then everyone should be able to do it. Thus arises a contradiction stealing is not universalizable. Thus, in this scenario, Kant is truly expressing that it is not fair to