Ethics and Moral Reasoning: Kantianism and Utilitarianism Debate

The student's discussion post explores Kantianism and Utilitarianism, contrasting their approaches to moral reasoning. The student analyzes Kant's concept of the Categorical Imperative, specifically in relation to false promises, and compares it to the utilitarian focus on universal happiness. The post highlights the differences in how these two ethical frameworks arrive at their conclusions, with Kant emphasizing the importance of acting based on maxims that can be universalized, while Utilitarianism prioritizes actions that maximize overall happiness. The student expresses a preference for Kantianism, arguing for the value of rational beings and the importance of considering whether an action respects human beings as ends in themselves. The post also touches upon the potential conflicts between these two ethical frameworks, such as the debate between acting based on happiness versus acting based on moral goodness, and the implications of using others for personal gain. References are provided to support the arguments made in the post.

Running head: KANTIANISM AND UTILITARIANISM REASONING 1
Ethics and moral reasoning; Kantianism and utilitarianism
Name
Professor
Course
Date

KANTIANISM AND UTILITARIANISM REASONING 2
Ethics and moral reasoning; Kantianism and utilitarianism
One of the texts from Emmanuel Kant is on false promise under the universal law
formulation. According to Kant, the universal law formula is that human beings are to act only
based on the maxima that they can will it to be considered a universal law in nature (Kant, 2008).
According to Kant’s argument false promise falls under the categorical imperatives in that the
commands are unconditional. This means that even one wishes to cheat to serve their interests,
they may not do that. The connection between morality and categorical imperative is what Kant
bases his argument and conclusion on the false promise text. The conclusion of the text is that if
making false promise became a universal law, the end that involved in the act may not be
attained. For instance, false promise is lying to gain something of interest and this means
accepting that all people can lie to also get what they want. However, if this would be the case, it
would be hard for people to believe one another and thus lies would not work and no one would
get things of interest (Kant, 2008). This means thwarting oneself from the goal in that it is
categorically imperative to lie since the only way to make false promise would be to lock oneself
out.
A utilitarian comes to a different conclusion about moral acts to Kant’s reasoning. The
reason is that as Kant beliefs that human beings need to look at the maxims of their actions while
the utilitarian people believe that human beings need to do actions that bring universal happiness
in life. There is variation in the way these two people come to make their conclusion (Thames,
2018). For instance, Kantianism involves a more time consuming process of analyzing an issue
to determine whether it can be considered a universal law. However a utilitarian would just
compare different actions and choose the one whose outcome if better to the others. Kant
believed that the life of human beings is valuable since humans can bear the rational life. This

KANTIANISM AND UTILITARIANISM REASONING 3
means that people are rational beings who can behave rationally and thus should not be utilized
at the expense of other people’s happiness. This variation in reason brings different conclusions.
I would very much agree to Kant’s moral reasoning but not on that of utilitarianism. The
reason is that I consider his reasoning superior to that of the other one. Being rational beings, we
need to be guided by the aspect of rationalism in that we can determine the end of doing an act
and see whether it lies on the good of doing it (Browning, 2015). This is because Kant’s
reasoning gives a person time to consider two questions; can one will that other do as he/she
wishes to act? And does ones action respect human being’s goal or involve merely using them
for personal interest? One is free to give any answer to these queries and then act. However,
utilitarianism allows people to use others for mere means regardless of them principally
consenting. I consider this unethical regardless of whether there is happiness in the end.
My answers agree and contradict to some of my peers. The main worry that comes in my
responses involves the choice of Kantianism and utilitarianism as many choose the latter. The
discussion lies on the line of whether needs to act based on happiness or on whether the end is
morally good (Woodard, 2013). Understanding this better involves deliberating on the aspect of
living in a world where one’s life can be utilized for the sake of others or being respected for it
being rational. We also need to compare living in a world of calculation and that of quick
decisions.

KANTIANISM AND UTILITARIANISM REASONING 4
References
Browning, N. (2015). The ethics of two-way symmetry and the dilemmas of dialogic
Kantianism. Journal of Media Ethics, 30(1), 3-18.
Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the metaphysic of morals (Links to an external site.)Links to an
external site.. In J. Bennett (Ed. & Trans.), Early Modern Philosophy. Retrieved from
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf
Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd
ed.). Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu
Woodard, C. (2013). The common structure of Kantianism and act-utilitarianism. Utilitas, 25(2),
246-265.