Kantianism

Kantianism vs. Utilitarianism

• Report rights infringement
• published: 17 May 2016
• views: 138

A brief summary and comparison between Kant, Bentham and Mill for PHL 205 statement paper. Kant’s theory is based on general moral that doesn’t depend on the consequences nor the circumstances. His judgment valued intention more than the outcome of an action, moreover, Kant stated “for an action to have genuine moral worth it must be done from duty” (Kant page 3). He also stressed on treating individuals as an end which in one of the reasons it became the foundation of human rights, “so act that you may use humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end never merely as a means” (Kant page 13). According to Kant, in order to say an action is morally good it have to stratify the categorical imperative. Which means that an action have to go through the universal law test, for example lying, individuals have to ask themselves whether they want to live in world where everyone lies and there is no such thing called truth? If they answered no then it would be morally wrong action. Interestingly, unlike Kant, Bentham valued the outcome more than the intention. Bentham was impressed with sciences like physics and math, so he tried to come with a similar system to defined whether an action morally good or not. It was called the calculus of happiness and by happiness he meant “the maximizing difference between pleasure and pain”. Specifically, individuals have to calculate pleasure points versus pain points and if pleasure outbalanced pain it will be consider morally good action. Bentham’s student Mill also claimed that happiness is more important that rationality. However, Mill argued that pleasure points are not equal and he emphasized that the quality beat quantity. Mill stated “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question” (Mill page 7).