There are three principles that serve as the basic axioms of utilitarianism.
The “Wrong Answers” Objection. The most common argument against act utilitarianism is that it gives the wrong answers to moral questions. Critics say that it permits various actions that everyone knows are morally wrong.
Perhaps the greatest difficulty with utilitarianism is that it fails to take into account considerations of justice. We can imagine instances where a certain course of action would produce great benefits for society, but they would be clearly unjust.
The most basic utilitarian critique of human rights lies in the assertion that resources are scarce in any society, and especially limited in some. This scarcity inevitably leads to utilitarian calculations to allocate those resources in a way that will maximize the greatest good.
It is easier to determine an action as morally right in Kantian ethics than in utilitarian ethics. When data is scarce, Kantian theory offers more precision than utilitarianism because one can generally determine if somebody is being used as a mere means, even if the impact on human happiness is ambiguous.
Utilitarianism
Kant has an insightful objection to moral evaluations of this sort. The essence of the objection is that utilitarian theories actually devalue the individuals it is supposed to benefit. ... To act in pursuit of happiness is arbitrary and subjective, and is no more moral than acting on the basis of greed, or selfishness.
KANTIAN ETHICS. German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was an opponent of utilitarianism. Leading 20th century proponent of Kantianism: Professor Elizabeth Anscombe (1920-2001).
The ethical theory of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) is most extensively articulated in his classical text Utilitarianism (1861). ... Mill remained a utilitarian throughout his life. Beginning in the 1830s he became increasingly critical of what he calls Bentham's “theory of human nature”.
The Formula of the Universal Law of Nature. Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (G 4:421). ... If your maxim passes all four steps, only then is acting on it morally permissible.
To do something because it makes you feel good or because you hope to gain something from it. What does it mean to act out of duty? Kant says this means that we should act from respect for the moral law.
Kant says that the good will is the only thing “good without limitation” (ohne Einschränkung). ... A good will, Kant says, often fails to achieve the good ends at which it aims. But its own proper goodness is not diminished by this failure, or even by bad results that might flow from it (contrary to its volitions).
value good will without limitation
What is the categorical imperative? The categorical imperative is the idea that you do something because it is your moral commands, and you are told to do them and they are not dependant on anything else. Kant said it will show if an action is being judged with pure reason.
Categorical imperative, in the ethics of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, founder of critical philosophy, a rule of conduct that is unconditional or absolute for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any desire or end. ...
The categorical imperative is an idea that the philosopher Immanuel Kant had about ethics. ... For example: if a person wants to stop being thirsty, it is imperative that they have a drink. Kant said an imperative is "categorical," when it is true at all times, and in all situations.
Kant's ethics are organized around the notion of a “categorical imperative,” which is a universal ethical principle stating that one should always respect the humanity in others, and that one should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone.
Kantian ethics are a set of universal moral principles that apply to all human beings, regardless of context or situation. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, calls the principles Categorical Imperatives, which are defined by their morality and level of freedom.
Hypothetical imperatives have the form “If you want some thing, then you must do some act”; the categorical imperative mandates, “You must do some act.” The general formula of the categorical imperative has us consider whether the intended maxim of our action would be reasonable as a universal law.
Kantian ethics are deontological, revolving entirely around duty rather than emotions or end goals. All actions are performed in accordance with some underlying maxim or principle, which are vastly different from each other; it is according to this that the moral worth of any action is judged.
Kant is saying that people should always be treated as valuable - as an end in themselves - and should not just be used in order to achieve something else. ... Here are three examples of treating people as means and not ends: treating a person as if they were an inanimate object. coercing a person to get what you want.
Kant is responsible for the most prominent and well-known form of deontological ethics. ... Kant believes human inclinations, emotions and consequences should play no role in moral action; therefore, the motivation behind an action must be based on obligation and well thought out before the action takes place.
The main difference between Kantianism and Utilitarianism is that Kantianism is a deontological moral theory whereas utilitarianism is a teleological moral theory. Both Kantianism and utilitarianism are ethical theories that express the ethical standard of an action.
The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also held that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about 'the greatest amount of good for the greatest number'.
Suffice to say, most superheroes — including Batman — are not utilitarians. Another perspective is that morality of an act is based on features intrinsic to the act itself, regardless of the consequences. This view is known as deontology[4].
Both incorporate in their proposed first principle of morality a kind of universality, in Kant's case that of restricting one's rules of action to those that one can will to be a universal law of nature, in Mill's case considering the consequences of a kind of action for all humans and sentient creatures.