There are fundamental differences and similarities between Utilitarianism and Kantianism. This paper seeks to evaluate the similarities and the difference between the two. First, Kant’s theory is exclusively rational in approach while Mill tends to avoid exclusiveness and uses intuitiveness (Comparison of Kant and Mill,” n.d ).
Utilitarianism presumes that morality and happiness have link that gives humans’ intuitions. On the other hand, Kantianism holds morality against morality. In particular, Kant ethics are anchored on categorical imperatives; the universal principle that is applicable to all reasonable human beings. Actions ought to lead to universal laws and if, the actions do not agree with the universal laws, and if not, the actions are not moral. The actions, even if they are within one’s line of duty cannot be moral, even when they lead to happiness.
Utilitarianism on the other hand seeks the greatest happiness. In this case, a moral act is that which leads to the happiness of the majority. Such requires the application of rules that sieves actions geared towards bringing the greatest benefits to all humans. The rules may be broken provided the result leads to the happiness of the majority. Therefore, the striking difference is that, whereas utilitarianism emphasizes on the consequences of the results, Kant opines that consequences do not matter. In addition, Kant, as opposed to utilitarianism focuses on the motivation to act. Mill focuses on the consequences. On the other hand, Utilitarianism focuses on the acts, how one chooses the acts, and the eventual results. In this scenario, Kant appeals to the rationality of the actor as opposed to sentient in the Mills theory. The rational actor, according to Kant respects and hold the autonomy while Mills approach requires the actor to seek to be in harmony with the other humans.
The two theories are similar in that both establish rules or situations that act as basis for determining what is moral or immoral. Such situations vary and as such are not fixed. The two theories lack on some principle and critical aspects that leads to criticism (“Evaluation of Kant’s Ethical view,” n.d). Although, the criticism varies on strength and focus, at least they led to some critical questions. Both theories also recognize the existence of “moral sense” although from divergent points of view. Both focus on the moral agency i.e. determining the one responsible for moral actions to all humans (Rational beings).
References
Evaluation of Kant’s Ethical view. Retrieved on October 3, 2014 from http://www.mesacc.edu/~davpy35701/text/kant-v-mill.html
Comparison of Kant and Mill. Retrieved on October 3, 2014 from http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/KantMillcomparison.htm
