Deontology versus utilitarianism: ethical frameworks compared

Philosophy: Deontology vs. Utilitarianism

In this paper I will discuss why I feel Deontology (Immanuel Kant's philosophy) is more correct than Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill), as applied to a specific issue. First I will give an interpretation of Kant's deontology, and point out the strong and logical points within his arguments; secondly I will offer an analysis of Mill's Utilitarianism, and why I feel Mill's views fall short.

Explanation: In Kant's The Moral Law, "Ethics is based not on feeling but on reason" (343) and our "moral duties," according to Pojman's analysis of Kant, "are not dependent on feelings but on reason." And so, actions are morally correct based on the source of their motives, one could say; those actions are morally correct if, that is, the motives for the actions are drawn from a sense of "duty." Duty is important in Kant's work, and therefore the deontological comes into play. Ethics, Pojman writes in describing Kant's moral law, "is based not on feeling but on reason."

And further, Kant's "categorical imperative" states that one must act on a "maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it would become a universal law." That is pretty heavy stuff: one makes a moral choice, an ethical choice; based not just on a feeling or a sense that it is the correct thing to do; but rather, one makes those moral/ethical choices based on the belief that the decision should be a "universal law."

As to John Stuart Mill's "What Utilitarianism is" (355) theory, there are many positive things within his theory, but it seems far too idealistic to be applied to all cases of making moral or ethical judgments. For example, he writes that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." By the word "happiness," Mill writes, he means "intended pleasure, and the absence of pain." To begin with, rarely in life is there ever a time where there is a total "absence of pain" - either emotional pain, physical pain, psychological pain - and so from the outset of Mill's theory, there is a suspicion that it is too unrealistic.

Moreover, Mill writes several long paragraphs describing what he means by pleasure and by pain; and on page 358 he rebuts (without directly mentioning Kant) what Kant has said about "duty." While admitting that "It is the business of ethics to tell us what are our duties..." he follows that passage with: "...but no system of ethics requires that the sole motive of all we do shall be a feeling of duty; on the contrary, ninety-nine hundredths of all our actions are done from other motives, and right so done...."