Kantianism and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the moral nature of human beings. Immanuel Kant’s moral system is based on a belief that the right actions are those which respect the freedom of rational agents. John Stuart Mill’s moral system is based on the theory known as utilitarianism, a principle that provides a criterion that distinguishes right and wrong. In this paper I will explain the moral theory of Utilitarianism (as presented by Mill) and Kant’s ethical theory. For each, I will construct one example of an action that the theory would clearly find impermissible, and explain why. I will then present one compelling objection to each theory, and will indicate how Mill and Kant would respond to the objection. I believe Kant’s ethical theory accurately captures the ideas of “right” and “wrong,” and will defend my view in the conclusion of this paper.
The basic idea of Kant’s moral theory states that one should never act in ways that constrain the freedom of others. Since the only possible source of positive moral value is a result of free will, morality requires that we respect the ability of rational agents to exercise their free will. Kant's theory is deontological, meaning that it is concerned with the morality of duty. The theory explains that we all experience an innate moral duty and feelings of guilt and shame tell us when we violate this moral duty. Therefore as Kant states, to act morally is to perform one’s duty, and one’s duty is to obey the innate moral laws. The fact that we ought to do something means that it is logically possible, leading to the correlation that ‘ought to’ implies ‘can’. Moral statements are prescriptive; they prescribe an action. If ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ then the statement, ‘I ought to do x’, implies that ‘I can do x’.
To Kant the highest of good can only be achieved by having good will. Good will is the result of actions that are morally required and to avoid those actions which are...