The Utilitarian Principles of Kant

Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2020

There have been several notions about the Kantian perspective and the utilitarian theory from all walks of life in the academic space. Kant spoke widely on morality, rights and justice for all persons whereas Bentham and Mill spoke of an action being right if they are useful for the benefit of the majority. Kant admonished people to act as they would want all other people to act towards them. This paper, therefore, takes the step to critically compare the Kantian principle of moral theory to the Utilitarian theory as an important aspect in general philosophy and the social science philosophy in particular. This critical paper adopts a systematic review approach whereby scholarly articles from different authors and sources were drawn which served as secondary sources of literature for the discussion. This paper argues that the Categorical Imperative' is a moral guideline devised to aid an individual in choosing to make the right decision and perform the right duties whereas the Utilitarian approach is an ethical system that proposes that the greatest useful goodness for the greatest number of people should be our guiding principle when making ethical decisions. This paper makes a case by imploring how the categorical imperative of Kantianism and the Utilitarian theory are applied in Social Science Research(SSR). It is therefore recommended that all life matters and persons should not be used as a means for one's satisfaction and what is right in society must be enforced and what is beneficial to the larger society must also be encouraged.

2018

Introduction Kant"s Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals was published in 1785. It is in fact a preliminary section of his philosophy, directed to the discovery of the supreme principle of morality. The Critique of Practical Reason was published in 1788. This is a full-scale examination of the practical activity of reason. Taken together with the Groundwork, it represents the most abstract side of Kant"s ethics. Kant"s Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alone was published in 1793. The relevant sections of this contain an account of the evil principle in man and a discussion of the relations between morality, religion and theology. The Metaphysic of Morals was published in 1797. This is a systematic working-out in their application to human beings of the rational principles of morality laid down in the Groundwork and the Critique of Practical Reason. This paper mainly focuses on Kant"s primary ethical principles as laid down in Groundwork. In Groundwork Kant argues that every person is worthy of respect as a rational being, capable of reason and capable of acting and choosing freely. Kant does not mean that we always succeed in acting rationally. Sometimes we do and sometimes we don"t. He means that we have the capacity for reason and for freedom and that capacity is common to human beings as such. When reason governs our will, we are not driven by the desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Our capacity for reason makes us distinctive and sets us apart from mere animal existence. It makes us more than mere creatures of appetite. Discussion According to Kant, the moral worth of an action consists not in the consequences that flow from it, but the intention from which the act is done. What matters is the motive. What matters is doing the right thing because it is right not for some ulterior motive. Kant writes, "A good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes.... Even if... the power is completely lacking in power to carry out its intentions; if by its utmost effort it still accomplishes nothing... even then it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value in itself"(Sandal 111).

2004

Journal of Philosophy

Revista de Estudios Kantianos, 2023

The “received view” on Kantian ethics holds that perfect duties enjoy absolute priority over imperfect duties. More recently, several Kantian scholars have reassessed this situation, arguing that imperfect duties may remain binding even if they imply breaching a perfect duty. In this article, I argue that both positions rely on a misunderstanding of the bindingness of Kantian duties. Genuine Kantian duties, I claim, remain binding even when they cannot be fulfilled. We must always strive for a total completion of our duties; what it means for us to strive for it, however, will vary depending on our peculiar situation.

2018

It is noteworthy that, in general, a certain similarity between Kant's ethics and utilitarianism or consequentialism is, especially, considered by some utilitarians or consequentialists (such as David Cummiskey and Richard M. Hare) 1 , while many neo-Kantians (such as Warner A. Wick or Christine M. Korsgaard) 2 refuse such reasoning. Other neo-Kantians, who admit the existence of this aspect in Kant's ethics, tried to mitigate the impracticability of its ethical concepts and eliminate criticism for its lack of interest in the real moral problems of man (Otfried Höffe, Jeffrie G. Murphy, Andreas Reath, Thomas E. Hill, Jr., etc.) 3. I think that Kant's moral ideal expressed through the Categorical Imperative has all the features of the enlightened maximalist and perfectionist moral ideal, 4 despite the fact that, in principle, it cannot be equated with Kant's motives towards perfectionism and, for example, utilitarian motives leading to the principle of maximization. Both theories seek to maximize but are based on different criteria and different themes. Utilitarianism seeks to maximize the happiness of the maximum number of people (Bentham, the Greatest Happiness Principle) on the basis of the assessment of the chances of achieving the maximum possible utility, pleasure or satisfaction of desires. Kant seeks to achieve this enlightened ideal based on good (moral) motives that lie in accepting, a priori, moral law and the maxims that it entails. 5 Maxims are Kant and Consequentialism (Reflections on Cummiskey's Kantian Consequentialism) In his article, the author considers possible forms of relationship between Kant's ethics and consequentialism. In this context, he analyses David Cummiskey's views which are expressed in his book, Kantian Consequentialism (1996). He demonstrates the possibility of justifying the consequentialism on the basis of Kant's ethics and its values. Likewise, several other authors (such as Scott Forschler, Philipp Stratton-Lake, Michael Ridge) are of the opinion of the possible compatibility of Kant's ethics and consequentialism. On the other hand, however, Christine M. Korsgaard is an example of a strict rejection of the similarity between Kant and the consequentialist ethics. The author based on the ethics of social consequences as a form of non-utilitarian consequentialism claims (like Cummiskey), that there are similarities between Kant's ethics and consequentialism. Unlike Cummiskey, however, he sees similarity in the Kant's formula of humanity and the understanding of humanity in ethics of social consequences, especially in the form of additional moral value.

2000

I articulate and defend the most central claims of contemporary Kantian moral theory. I also explain some of the most important internal disagreements in the field, contrasting two approaches to Kantian ethics: Kantian Constructivism and Kantian Realism. I connect the former to Kant’s Formula of Universal Law and the latter to his Formula of Humanity. I end by discussing applications of the Formula of Humanity in normative ethics.

Applied Ethics, 2017

Kant's moral theory has acquired the reputation of being forbiddingly difficult to understand and, once understood, excessively demanding in its requirements. I don't believe that this reputation has been wholly earned, and I am going to try to undermine it.... I shall try to reduce some of the difficulties.... Finally, I shall compare Kantian and utilitarian approaches and assess their strengths and weaknesses.

In seeking to explain Mill's moral theory, recent "revisionist" interpeters have focused upon his remarks about punishment in Chapter Five of UTILITARIANISM. In particular, they have called attention 1 to Mill's assertion that "the real turning point of the distinction between morality and simple expediency" consists in the fact that a morally wrong action is one for which people ought somehow to be punished, either by an external sanction (law or public opinion) or by an internal sanction ("the reproaches of his own conscience"). 2