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...

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…