Kantian Theory: The Definition Of Utilitarianism

The definition of utilitarianism is the following; “Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Utility is defined in various ways, including as pleasure, economic well-being and the lack of suffering.” To summarize that, it means doing the greatest good for the most people. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialist thinking. Thus meaning, that it focuses on the end result. Although the utilitarian approach has many positive effects for the majority, the minorities end to get left out. In this scenario, the Navajo people are the minority and the company itself is the majority. Another negative side effect is the assumption that one has all the knowledge needed in order to …show more content…
This approach focuses on what is right. The “right” thing can be based off of universal ethical principles or values such as promise keeping, honesty, fairness, loyalty and rights. In this approach, certain regulations can be more binding than others. The Kantian effect comes along through Emmanuel Kant. Kant presented the rule of categorical imperative: “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.” In considering what to do with the situation, the Kantian rule is asking to consider whether the rationale for the choice made is suitable to become a law or principle for everyone else to follow. What kind of would it be if people broke promises? This is something considering the side of blowing the whistle. What kind of world would it be if people continually contaminated water? This is a question to consider on the side of quitting the job and not telling the secret. Although the people should always be honest and keep their promises, there is more to certain situations than we think. The world would not be a good place if everyone kept secrets they were pushed into making. An example given in the book is that of Nazi Germany. Most people would not want to live in a world where people are expected to tell the truth when doing so means the death of another human being. At last, keeping promises is important, what would the world be like if people kept promises that were …show more content…
Rawls proposed that people making decisions should use a veil of ignorance to arrive at the fundamental principles of justice that should guide ethical decision making. This veil of ignorance is referring to a common exercise in where imaginary people come together behind a veil of ignorance. In this exercise, the imaginary people do not know anything about themselves, they do not know if they are old, what race they are, their status, their sexuality or their health. The decision should be made the same way. Effectively the decision should be made the same way. Meaning that the person making the decision should have no idea the minor details of the problem at hand. Using this analogy to work out the current problem would appear as the