kantianism vs utilitarianism
Final published version
Discover related content
Find related publications, people, projects and more using interactive charts.
Moreover, because Bentham’s theory only takes into account the most happiness possible caused by a moral action, it neglects minorities. For example, in Singapore, the Sikhs are a substantial minority in a population of mainly Chinese and Muslims. If someone were to annihilate all the Sikhs for the happiness of the Chinese and Muslims, then according to Bentham’s theory, the majority of the people would be happy. In this sense, this theory is flawed because although a certain action may cause the greatest happiness for the greatest number of the people (Chinese and Muslims), the Sikhs will be unhappy.
Lastly, you seem to invoke a utilitarian argument for your smoking example. You say that because taking cigarettes from people that are smoking would cause suffering for people, it is morally wrong. However, keeping with a utilitarian argument, do the long term health consequences of continuing to smoke (and inherent suffering of the individual, family, etc.) outweigh the suffering caused by forcing them to quit?
Not going to lie, this was a really good essay that had me rethinking comments that I posted earlier. The idea that you leave the essay on, disputing the definitions/life of Kantianism and Utilitarianism , clearly shows that you for one agree more with Kantianism. I for one , do agree with the idea of being a “rational being”; but , in the same sense I do like to see happiness of others. Obviously since I cant the best of both worlds, to answer your conclusion of questions I make the decision to be neither. As you stated in earlier comments, ethics will never be perfect especially since every one has there own opinions. Furthermore, I feel as though every situation calls for a different solution. I don’t need to do math problems at every situation in life, and I surely cant’ just be quick on my feet either !
B. Against Kant’s ethical view :
A. In favor of Mill’s Ethical view :
Kant embarked on defining the universal laws that determine the duty of making morally worthy decisions. He formulated two different versions of the categorical imperative. The first version was the universal law that defined that humans must act in a manner that qualifies categorization as universal. The second version of the categorical imperative highlighted that it was critical for humans to consider humanity as the end and refrain from regarding it as merely a means (58).
As described above, it evident that, in Kant’s view, duty, good will, and moral worth is the critical aspects in determining ethical decisions taken. In his view, one could only settle on morally worth decisions when guided by goodwill and duty and, therefore, euthanasia is ethically wrong. On the other hand, the central principle of the ethical view is that actions taken should produce happiness and pleasure to a large number of people, and euthanasia is ethically preferable.