Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Over the years, multiple standpoints to illuminate the morality of human actions have emerged. Humans have striven to produce a perfect theory to act as a point of reference when evaluating human actions. This has resulted in the emergence of a multitude of systems of beliefs. However, two theories have stood out in this debate. These are the utilitarian theory and the Kantian theory. This write-up will argue against utilitarianism from the point of view of Kants theory categorical imperative (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 20).
Utilitarianism is a moral standpoint that was propounded by Bentham and Mill. Advocates of utilitarianism argue that seeking maximum happiness is the most ethical thing an individual can do for a society (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 22). According to them, actions have measurable results: choices of morality have results that give maximum happiness to a large number of societal members. Utilitarianism hence examines human actions based on outcomes (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 23).
Arguing from the point of view of a categorical imperative, utilitarianism is a system that treats people as means to an end. Kantianism bases its validity on a universal principle of ethics, which guides every human action no matter how circumstances or desires may be (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 23). This imperative is categorical and is normally directed by reason and not circumstances, need, or desire.
According to Kant, Utilitarianism is a wrong system because instead of acting out necessity and duty, its actions are based on outcomes. To him, this form of understanding is not experience-based. It uses its power to unify and direct human behavior. It is not conditional. Kant accuses utilitarianism of being conditional (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 26).
In the words of Kant, utilitarianism cannot be used as a yardstick in the evaluation of human actions because it is not universal. To him, like the categorical imperative, a moral law should apply to all rational beings, should be unconditional, and should come before experience. The utilitarian theory passes none of these verification requirements. Because of their sensuous nature, human beings experience the law of morality as a constriction. They tend to act in a contradictory manner because of the frequent moral dilemmas encountered. This explains why people often indulge in evil or immoral deeds (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 27).
From a Utilitarian moral standpoint, the end justifies the means . Human actions are evaluated based on the outcomes and not on motives. On the contrary, Kant sees the results as obsolete in determining a moral course of action. To him, the intention is paramount in evaluating human actions concerning morality.
In the modern world, utilitarianism has gained unmatched popularity, especially in the political sphere. People are not at all acting out of duty, but out of the outcomes. A good example is a way political leaders use their political authority to enrich themselves and safeguard their interests.
The fundamental philosophy of utilitarian principle is the idea of the greatest happiness for the majority of people. This philosophy has stood out as the cornerstone for the contemporary system of democracy. When basic principles of utilitarianism are used to inform human action, the intention of the action remains disregarded. Utilitarian principle attempts to detach the action from the actor, and focus on the broader idea over the person.
The approach taken by utilitarian proponents has faced massive criticism by the Kantians. Proponents of Kantianism argue that utilitarianism has often worked hard to ignore and brush individuals and minorities aside. According to Kants categorical imperative, action is right not unless its intentions are also moral.
Utilitarian advocates would like to argue that, there can never be universal truths in morality. According to them, universal truths, if it is not impossible, are hard to ascertain. On the contrary, the advantages and the shortcomings of deeds are much more cheaply measured (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 27).
Concisely, Utilitarian proponents urge Kantians to stop depending on blurred and nebulous moral truths to direct action. To them, people should devise more justifiable ways of establishing the morality of specified acts. They believe that the Kantian categorical imperative, leads to ethically flawed conclusions. Hence, for them, ends are more important than means in determining whether an action is morally right or otherwise (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 27).
Kant negates the primacy utilitarianism presumes regarding the issue of moral actions. To him, ends are usually deceptive . He argues that it is not possible to envisage the consequences of ones actions with complete sureness. He contends that the only thing one can certainly know is whether human actions are moral or otherwise: concerning the categorical imperative (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 26).
Moreover, proponents of Kantianism hold that humans can only be accountable for their deeds and not those of others. In the eyes of Kantians, utilitarianism as a system is flawed because it devolves in a precarious ethical relativism where humans are permitted to validate heinous acts on grounds that their consequences are advantageous (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 23).
Kantianism and Utilitarianism attempt to unravel the puzzle of what is good life . What a good life entails is a subject of philosophical relativism. This is a philosophical puzzle, which no matter how hard people may argue a definite conclusion will never be attained. This puzzle is an obscure part of the belief system. According to advocates of utilitarianism, a good life is that which benefits as many people as possible. Naturally, a life that would generate happiness for the greatest number of people would be acknowledged as a virtuous life. This is what utilitarianism believes in.
On the contrary, Kants argument contradicts this perspective. To him, an action is morally right if and only if, it is done completely out of duty. Kant further creates a clear distinction between different intentions. To him, an action can agree with obligation and still fail to satisfy the requirements of morality. Take for instance a person who owes his or her friend some money and later pays it. The ethical question here would be, with what motive did he pay the money? If he paid the cashback to fulfill his or her obligation, then his act, according to Kant, is morally right. This is because he acts out of duty and necessity (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 27).
On the contrary, if the motive to pay the money back was to secure an opportunity for future return, then the action is consequential and hence, ethically wrong. This is because the reason to pay the money back is not to fulfill an obligation, but to create a future chance to borrow again. Such actions are what Kant calls hypothetical imperatives because one does not act out of necessity and rightness of the action, but rather out of the outcome.
According to Kantians, the utilitarians effort in doing whatever is appropriate to warrant the best result violates the principles of integrity. When one is dedicated to securing the best, he or she avoids saying such statements as poor results. No matter how savage an act needed to warrant the best result is, utilitarian advocates would still believe that it is illogical to regret doing it. This is because what in actuality is the right course of action will have already been done.
Kantianism, which delineates a determining factor of conduct, to embrace instead of setting an objective of actions to struggle to find a solution to the issue of integrity, seems plausible. The benefit of the Kantian standpoint is the definite field of accountability. Ones portion of accountability for the way contemporary society seems is delineated as constricted. If one does as he or she ought to, then she or he cannot bear the responsibility of related bad results or consequences.
Therefore, Kantianism prevails over utilitarianism in as much as goodwill and duty is concerned. As far as morality is concerned, a utility can never be an evaluator for actions. Utilitarianism cannot be universalized. On the other hand, the Kantian theory of duty would prevail as it considers universal factors.
Reference
Poijman, L. & Tramel, P. (2009). Moral Philosophy: A Reader. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.