Kantianism and Utilitarianism: A Contrast of Philosophies

Running head: KANTIANISM AND UTILITIARINISM
Kantianism and Utilitarianism
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

1KANTIANISM AND UTILITIARINISM
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of
any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end”
The above quoted lines of Immanuel Kant from his famous work “Grounding for the
Metaphysics of Morals/On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns”
forms the fulcrum round which most of the moral philosophy revolves. It is to be noted that
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was one of the major philosophers of not Germany but of the
entire world (Wood). His theories related to morality and the “rightness or the wrongness” of
any action are still in use and make modern philosophers still take the help of his
philosophies to develop further theories in the relevant field (Wood). However, his
philosophy is often contrasted with the precepts of the philosophies of Utilitarianism. This
essay intends to give contrast the philosophies of Kant with the philosophies of
Utilitarianism.
The major philosophies of Kant are grouped under the heading “Kantianism” and this
particular genre is used to give a broader overview of the moral philosophies of Kant. In the
moral philosophy of Kant the rightness or the wrongness of a particular action is decided on
the basis of the action concerned and not on the end result (Kant). It is interesting to note that
the feelings involved in the course of the action or the process are not taken into
consideration by Kant. It is a reflection of this thought process that Kant says “It is not
necessary that whilst I live I live happily; but it is necessary that so long as I live I should live
honourably” (Kant). Therefore, the various theories as well as the philosophies of Kant have
come under much criticism in the recent times. Another major precept of the philosophies of
Kant is his over-reliance on the reason or the intellectualism of the human beings. Thus, he
says in his famous work “Critique of Pure Reason”, “Whereas the beautiful is limited, the
sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine
what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the