Onora O\u2019Neill simplifies Kant\u2019s moral theory through the Formula of the End in Itself, which is acting in such a way that treats humanity as an end, as opposed to a mere means. To use someone as a mere means is to \u201cinvolve them in a scheme of action to which they could not in principle consent\u201d (O\u2019Neill 412). To treat a person as an end is to respect an individual \u201cas a rational person with his or her own maxims\u201d (O\u2019Neill 412). After an understandable explanation of Kantian ethics, O\u2019Neill shows the advantages of Kantianism over utilitarianism.<\/p>\n
Kantianism and utilitarianism have different ways for determining whether an act we do is right or wrong. According to Kant, we should look at our maxims, or intentions, of the particular action. Kantians believe \u201chuman life is valuable because humans are the bearers of rational life\u201d (O\u2019Neill 414). In other words, humans are free rational beings capable of rational behavior and should not be used purely for the enjoyment or happiness of another.\u00a0 On the other hand, Utilitarians believe that we should do actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness. The problem with this, however, is that it could involve using people as mere means and may lead to the sacrifice of lives for the greater good. (O\u2019Neill 413-415). Christopher Bennett expands on this point by stating that Utiliarians justify punishing an innocent party \u201cif it is necessary to bring about a sufficiently important good effect\u201d (Bennett 59). Additionally, promises, which are typically binding in our society, can be broken if it produces a greater good. This can be applied to any promise, including those made with loved ones. Utilitarianism sometimes involves the sacrifice of an individual\u2019s happiness or life in order to promote the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of misery (Bennett 71).<\/p>\n
It is easier to determine an action as morally right in Kantian ethics than in utilitarian ethics. When data is scarce, Kantian theory offers more precision than utilitarianism because one can generally determine if somebody is being used as a mere means, even if the impact on human happiness is ambiguous. Kantians \u201cconsider only the proposals for an action that occur to them and check that these proposals use no other as mere means\u201d (O\u2019Neill 413). Contrastingly, utilitarianism compares all available acts and sees which has the best effects. Although utilitarianism has a larger scope than Kantianism, it is a more timely process. The decision-making method of calculating all of the potential costs and benefits of an action is extremely time consuming and leaves little time for promoting happiness, which is the Utilitarian\u2019s goal (Bennett 63).<\/p>\n
What world would you rather live in? A world where your happiness or life can be taken away from you for the sake of others or a world where you\u2019re acknowledged as a rational being?\u00a0 A world based off of trust or a world full of broken promises? A world full of calculations or a world with quick decision making? The decision is yours.<\/p>\n
Works Cited<\/p>\n
O\u2019Neill, Onora. \u201cA Simplified Account of Kant\u2019s Ethics.\u201d 411-415. Blackboard.\u00a0Web.\u00a019 Oct. 2014.<\/p>\n
Bennett, Christopher. “Utilitarianism.” What is this thing called ethics?<\/i>. London: Routledge, 2010. 55-73<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Onora O\u2019Neill simplifies Kant\u2019s moral theory through the Formula of the End in Itself, which is acting in such a way that treats humanity as an end, as opposed to a mere means. To use someone as a mere means … Continue reading