This paper examines two major ethical frameworks: Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics and the utilitarian ethics of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. It explains Kant's concept of the good will, the distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, and his universal moral law. The paper then contrasts these ideas with utilitarianism's focus on consequences and the greatest good for the greatest number, including Bentham's hedonic calculus and Mill's refinements. The paper concludes by noting the limitations of both systems and suggesting that a combined approach may be most effective.
Deontological ethics is a system of ethics that emphasizes the intentions or motives behind an action to determine its morality, rather than the effects of actions in a given situation. Immanuel Kant was one of the most prominent deontologists, and his particular form of deontology was absolutist. That is, Kant believed that an act could only be good in one instance if it was good in all instances, and likewise that an act was not fully moral — though not necessarily immoral — if there were any instance in which it would fail to be moral.
Kant arrives at this conclusion after determining that acts that are good must come from the "good will," which is simply the will to do good for no other reason than that it is good. For instance, though "to secure one's own happiness is a duty," it is not an act of morality because it stems from selfish motives (Kant, Sec. 1). This distinction leads directly to the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.
Imperatives, as Kant defined them, are the forces that dictate action. A hypothetical imperative is an action required in a given set of circumstances — if one were thirsty, for example, one would have a duty to drink in order to quench that thirst. A categorical imperative, on the other hand, is morally absolute, equally applicable and mandatory in every situation. The categorical imperative therefore represents the demands of the good will — the actions required by moral duty. It can also be used to derive Kant's proposed universal law of nature and morality.
Kant's universal moral law is stated in the following formula: "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." In other words, no action should be taken that one would not be willing to see repeated universally, in all situations without exception.
Utilitarian ethics, or utilitarianism, is diametrically opposed to deontology. As advanced by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, it is a system built entirely on the effects or consequences of an action, regardless of the intentions behind it. This makes it the clear opposite of deontology: according to deontological ethics, telling a lie is wrong even if it saves a million lives, whereas according to utilitarianism, even a deliberately harmful act would be considered good if it accidentally produced a good outcome.
In order to measure the morality of an act, its total utility — the overall effect it has on all persons involved — is determined, and anything that leads to more good than bad is considered ethically correct. Utilitarian ethics is often summed up in the phrase, "the greatest good for the greatest number."
"Bentham's hedonic calculus and moral measurement"
"Critiquing consequentialism and comparing both frameworks"
You’re 66% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.