Why utilitarianism is better than kant

On the other hand, Utilitarians believe that we should do actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness. The problem with this, however, is that it could involve using people as mere means and may lead to the sacrifice of lives for the greater good. Additionally, promises, which are typically binding in our society, can be broken if it produces a greater good.

This can be applied to any promise, including those made with loved ones. 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.

Whatever produces the most happiness in the most people is the moral course of action. 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.

If we allow utilitarian calculations to motivate our actions, we are allowing the valuation of one person's welfare and interests in terms of what good they can be used for. It would be possible, for instance, to justify sacrificing one individual for the benefits of others if the utilitarian calculations promise more benefit. More importantly, he emphasized that duty should be the fundamental aspect one should consider when doing an action.

Moreover, he further explained that humans, being rational beings, should use their reasoning ability or rational thinking when making ethical decisions. Likewise, Kant described two fundamental questions to consider when one is doing any action:.

The main reason for Kant to not consider the consequences of actions when determining its morality is that he believed that actions such as theft, lying, murder, crimes etc. Utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy introduced by pioneering figures such as Jeremy Bentham introduced the classical utilitarianism , John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick, and G.

E Moore. Utilitarianism is based on the principle of utility, which emphasizes on the idea of being more useful and beneficial for a majority. Also, this theory was developed as a result of an attempt to direct the lawmakers of England to consider the common good rather than the welfare of their social class when formulating laws.

Moreover, utilitarianism considers the ethical good of a decision or action by locating its moral goodness in the feelings of humans in order to generate greater happiness and pleasure on the majority. Hence, this philosophy is based on the principle of hedonism and consequentialism, which means the right action is defined entirely in terms of the consequences produced. Figure 2: John Stuart Mill.

First, there is the contradiction where the very idea of the principle holding as universal law would be impossible. Take the making of false promises for our own gain as an example:. The second possible contradiction is in our willing that the act become a universal law. Take never helping anybody else as an example:. Next, I will draw on some scenarios to explain where the two moral theories might disagree with each other. This will help to understand the applications of the two theories and will allow me to explain why I side with Kant over Mill.

The first scenario we will call the Righteous Burglar. In this scenario, there is a metropolis with a large income distribution. There are many millionaires in this city, even billionaires, and also extremely poor people, some of which are quite special and could really do a lot of good for the world if only they had the money to escape poverty.

The poor people given the money tend to decide to do decent things with their money: they spend it on their families, they start local businesses that employ people, some of them even start charities. The billionaires, not very affected by their loss, tend to spend a little more money on security and otherwise go on with their lives. The burglaries are clean extractions anyway, and nobody is really traumatized. How should we think of the Righteous Burglar?

Mill would ask us to evaluate his actions as they promote happiness and avoid suffering. Before the Righteous Burglar operated, many of the poor were suffering; now they are happy. The billionaire stolen from was whatever level of happy he was, and now he is only slightly less happy. The amount of happiness caused was great, the amount of suffering caused was minimal.

According to utilitarianism, then, the Righteous Burglar does something morally good. Now, I will perform the Kant test as well on this scenario:. In the eyes of Mill, the Righteous Burglar is good, and in the eyes of Kant, he is bad. This is what I believe to be the major bullet that supporters of Kant must bite.