A Kantian Society Vs. Utilitarian Society

A Kantian society versus a Utilitarian society, it begs the question, what would you rather live in? Kantian ethics places a heavy emphasis on not treating people as a means to our end, Kant stressed motivation over consequences unlike utilitarianism. Utilitarianism stresses that the final result is more important than how you came about it. A christian society should be based more so on Kantian ethics then utilitarianism based on the precise thought that motivation is more important than consequence. As a christian I am called to evangelism, to bringing other people into the light and teachings of Christ with the love and compassion of Christ. In order to evangelize and be a true light in the world, it is important for a christian to truly …show more content…
Kantian ethics forces people to honour each other’s values and morals, and not overstep them for their own gain. I would want to live in a world in which each man and woman respects the needs of each other. It would be nice if everyone could just have happiness, but as a consequence of what? The leaders or Russia tried implementing this kind of principle, making everyone equal and everyone happy, ignoring the consequences it took to get there. Lenin started in the 1920s by treating everyone equally, be redistributing land and wealth throughout Russia. He wanted a unified Russia in which everyone would be happy. The in which he went about doing this, bus harsh and immoral. He didn’t care about moral laws, but just wanted maximum pleasure for all and a unified Russia. Lenin was ok that many people would die and be abused at the expense of the rest of the country’s happiness and his position of power. There were many camps and brutalities ensued from these camps, putting away powerful political leaders and leaders in society. Lenin didn’t care about what it took to get that happiness, a happiness which he thought would give everyone pleasure. In a Kantian society, this would not happen for people would not be able to do this for the motivation and action is more important then the consequence. It doesn’t matter what happened, it’s how …show more content…
In the same ways that Kantian ethics has some downsides, utilitarianism has some upsides to it. Firstly Kantian ethics doesn’t guarantee a positive outcome or consequence due to the fact that Kantian ethics doesn’t dwell on consequences. You many do have proper motivation, but end up with an immoral consequence. The classic example here is if you were hiding Jews in your house during WWII and some Nazis showed up. If you follow Kantian ethics, it’s in your duty to tell the truth and tell these soldiers that you do indeed have Jews in your house. Kant believed that if you have to live by the ‘worlds rules’, meaning if you believe no one is allowed to steal, lie or cheat, then you are bound by these rules as well. This is the categorical imperative according to Kant. How could you live in a society where you couldn’t even live by your own morals, seen in the case with hiding a Jew in your house. A utilitarian society would have some positives in the same case that Kantian ethics has some negatives. A utilitarian society focuses on consequence and not motivation but takes everyone’s opinion and works toward maximum happiness. Everybody 's opinion is heard, it’s egalitarian, you’re able to make decisions based on your opinions and morals, making decisions which you personally feel will make the best impact for the most people. So why wouldn’t i want