Kantians believe that the rightness or wrongness of an action does not depend on the consequences, but on whether they fulfill a duty. They must act in a way that will produce the greatest overall amount of good in the world. In this view there is no obligation to give money to a homeless person, but it is the right thing to do. Kant’s supreme moral principle is the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a moral law that is unconditional for all agents because of intrinsic value.
In Kantian terms, there lies a set of moral principles that is universal and continues to apply to all humankind no matter the context or situation. In the minds of someone who believes in this ethical theory, their decision is always motivated by goodwill and that end never justifies the means, it is all about duty. A person who stands with the supreme court decision and is in favor of banning abortion across all states is someone who believes in the kantian ethics
Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative and John Stuart Mill’s view of utilitarianism are two very different approaches to ethics and morals. In fact, they are the opposite of one another. Kant’s view of ethics is an ethics of pure reason- a deontological theory of ethics. He stresses that feelings and emotions should have no part in ethics because they are unreliable, changeable, and uncertain. He states that ethical principles must be universal and that ethics are distinctively human.
Kant stated that human beings are living by their own reason, own rationale. Moral responsibility requires our action to be free. Freedom is not just the ability to do what we want, when we want, it actually comes from reasoning and rationale. According to Kant it is necessary that human beings have free will, otherwise it will be unreasonable to hold people reasonable. Holding people responsible would not make sense without free will.
As it has been shown, the utilitarian view has its strengths and is certainly logical in some cases, however, Kantian ethics offer a more stable set of moral
Utilitarianism is different from Kantianism because it says that you can perform any action even if it provides some harm to others, but at the end it should provide maximum utility. But on the other end, Kantianism says that you need to treat everyone equal, no one less than the other. They both hold different views but they both are right in certain situations. Utilitarianism and Kantianism conflict in many situations. For example, you have a friend who’s pregnant, but she’s scared to tell her parents.
While utilitarian ethics focuses on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number, deontological ethics focuses on what makes us worthy of happiness. For Kant, as for the Stocis and other who emphasize duty, we are worthy of happiness only when we do our duty. As Kant explained, morality “is not properly the doctrine of how we are to make ourselves happy but of how we are to become worthy of happiness.” For Kant, morality is not a “doctrine of happiness” or set of instructions on how to become happy. Rather, morality is the “rational condition of happiness”
Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.
