Comparing Utilitarianism to Kant's Categorical Imperative - A Brief Exercise
Consequentialism v. Deontology
In the practice of ethics, we largely discuss what we base our moral frameworks on. An action is morally good/bad/etc. because of something. While there are numerous theories on what that something is, I wish to write at length on consequentialism and deontology, specifically on how they can interact as jointed ideas and not just opposite ends of a spectrum. The typical consequentialist believes that morality is dependent on the consequence; an action is moral if it produces desirable consequences, an action is amoral if it's consequences are undesirable. The goal of a consequentialist is to maximize the overall well-being and/or happiness of a given party or parties. On the other side of this spectrum, a deontologist is not concerned with consequences, but instead bases morality of actions on the obligations one has to others. An action is moral if it conforms to a standard of absolute rules. Neither of these theories provide any path to morality, that is to say they are negative theories with no clear guidelines as to what is and is not a moral action.
Utilitarian Consequence Evaluation
The typical consequentialist can go one of two ways in maximizing happiness and well-being. The arguably less popular and more scrutinized consequentialist theory is Ethical-Egoism. The ethical-egoist believes that, yes, morality is dependent on consequences and maximizing well-being and happiness, but only for themself. To this person, an action is moral if it yields desirable consequences for themself, even if it yields undesirable consequences for others. The more popular consequentialist theory, Utilitarianism, follows the principle of deriving the most possible well-being and happiness for as many parties as possible. The utilitarian would settle a disagreement between two parties by evaluating which answer would bring the most happiness, usually weighing one party's happiness against the amount of misery, if any, that the answer would bring the opposing party. The utilitarian, if made to choose, would feel morally justified in killing one person to save many.
Kant's Categorical Imperative
Kant is infamous in the ethics sphere, and as a philosopher as a whole. He's known for being a deontologist, believing that morality adheres to universal laws without exception. Kant's Categorical Imperative has four formulations which are scaffolded. Kant writes, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law ... 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 ... Thus the third practical principle follows [from the first two] as the ultimate condition of their harmony with practical reason: the idea of the will of every rational being as a universally legislating will ... Act as according to maxims of a universally legislating member of a merely possible kingdom of ends" - Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.