Question

Utilitarian and Kantian Ethics: Is maximizing happiness a sufficient principle by which to formulate our ethical judgments? Why does Kant disagree? Is Kant correct?

TEXT: The Philosophical Journey: An Interactive Approach

Answer 1

Utilitarianism suggests that an act would be considered ethical if it maximizes benefit to maximum number of people and reduce any harm. This would mean that people should look at the consequence of their actions in order to determine whether it’s ethical or not. Kant on the other hand suggests that an act would be considered ethical if it fulfils duty without worrying about the consequences. This would mean that one should stick to one’s duty whether it maximizes utility or not since consequence is not one’s concern as per Kant. However, duty ethics would undermine human autonomy and intuition in making reasonable decisions to maximize benefit to maximum number of people. When one sees that one is drowning in the river in front of one’s eyes while on one’s duty of security, as per utilitarian, one should save the person thus benefitting not only the person but also the family members. Kant would allow the security to stay on guard allowing the person to drown which would bring an everlasting pain and guilty feeling in the security’s mind. Thus, in my opinion, utilitarianism is better than duty ethics in determining one’s actions.

Thank you for the question. Please rate if you like the answer.