Utilitarianism and deontology: ethical frameworks compared

Utilitarianism and Deontology

John Stuart Mill's theory of Utilitarianism and Immanuel Kant's Deontological theory approach the question of ethics from diametrically opposite points-of-view: "Consequentialist theories...try to ground moral judgments in human well-being. Kantian theories...try to ground moral judgments in the rational nature of the moral subject, whose inherent dignity they emphasize." (Aune & Berger, p. 125) It is the objective of this paper to briefly explain and compare the two theories.

Mill's theory of Utilitarianism is considered a consequentialist theory of ethics for the simple reason that the theory propounds that the ethicality of actions is a function of their consequences. For Mill, that consequence was happiness because he deemed that goal as the one that human beings naturally sought out. Thus, he considered utilitarianism a morally optimal course of action, as it offered a path that was most useful to human beings. While Mill's theory may have been based on a practical approach, his theory has often been criticized for its apparent failure to consider the intrinsic value of actions: "The value of an act, then, is just a matter of summing up all the pleasures or pains that are produced as a consequence...." (Aune & Berger, p. 94)

Indeed, utilitarianism's failure to consider the intrinsic worth of actions is precisely what led Kant into criticizing the theory. For, in Kant's view, utilitarianism led to the temptation of sacrificing one person for the good of the whole. Whereas, Kant held that human beings had intrinsic worth and, therefore, he thought that there were certain actions that were wrong irrespective of whether such actions increased the total amount of happiness in the world (Hudelson, p. 76-77). In fact, it can be said that the tenet that morality requires belief in the existence of God, freedom, and immortality forms the foundation of Kant's Deontological theory: "The system of morality is derivable and thus identifiable...from a supreme principle that he called 'the moral law.' His famous name for this law, which he formulated in a number of different ways, is 'the categorical imperative.' The system derivable...consists of general rules...under the headings (among others) of duties of justice and duties of virtue." (Hudelson, p. 79) While there is a broad agreement among many scholars that Kantian theory has a great deal of validity, it has also been criticized for the impossibility of some of its maxims (Aune & Berger, p. 90).

Thus, the basic difference between Kant and Mill's theory is that while the former decreed that actions should be guided by moral principles, the latter believed that it was the end result that counted. Surprisingly the two theories do share some common ground. For instance, both theories firmly advocate the importance of freedom and liberty. Indeed, it is interesting to note that it was largely utilitarian thinking in England that led to growing support for wider extensions of suffrage to the working class and women (Hudelson, p. 34). Similarly, several scholars often opine that democracy and the system of free markets is utilitarian in nature (Hudelson, p. 21). Considering, however, that even democratic societies and free market systems need to be guided and governed by a code of ethics, one begins to see how Kantian principles come into play. For instance, in Groundwork, Kant says that we treat a person as a thing in itself when we do two things; first, we act in ways that do not interfere with the realization of his or her ends; and second, we endeavor, so far as possible, to make those ends ours (Aune & Berger, p. 85).