Philosophy 1301
Response Paper #4
Kant’s deontological ethical position compared to the utilitarian consequentialist position
are very different in comparison. Kant’s view on humanity states that each and every one of us
has intrinsic value, and we should treat each other as well as ourselves as we would want to be
treated. The utilitarian view of humanity states that the consequences of actions are the standard
between right and wrong, and as a whole the utilitarian view is one that goes with the majority
and does not view the individual with as much value as the deontological view.
The problems I see with Kant’s deontological ethical position is that it would be very
difficult to live by the “moral law” that Kant says that we must live by in order to have the “good
will”. As Kant puts it, as long as it does not involve any personal gain and would be morally
correct, then it would be okay. However, if there is some sort of personal gain, even though it
may also be in the best interests of the whole, would be immoral. By that standard, I would think
that it would at least be somewhat of a “win/win situation” if it just so happens to benefit the
whole as well as the individual, but Kant would not see it this way. As for problems with the
utilitarian consequentialist position, the obvious issue is that the individual is not considered as
much as with Kant’s deontological ethical position. The utilitarian position is very different for it
is to make the greatest good for the greatest number of people, the majority. If I had to choose
between the two, I would have to say I would choose Kant’s deontological ethical position since
it is very appealing to me in the sense that it appeals to the individual, and much more emphasis
is given to the idea of the “Golden Rule”, which it would appear is very similar to Kant. As an
individual, I would prefer this position much more, because I believe in the “Golden Rule”, for
which Kant’s ethics seem to be based on, or vice versa.
Response Paper #4
Kant’s deontological ethical position compared to the utilitarian consequentialist position
are very different in comparison. Kant’s view on humanity states that each and every one of us
has intrinsic value, and we should treat each other as well as ourselves as we would want to be
treated. The utilitarian view of humanity states that the consequences of actions are the standard
between right and wrong, and as a whole the utilitarian view is one that goes with the majority
and does not view the individual with as much value as the deontological view.
The problems I see with Kant’s deontological ethical position is that it would be very
difficult to live by the “moral law” that Kant says that we must live by in order to have the “good
will”. As Kant puts it, as long as it does not involve any personal gain and would be morally
correct, then it would be okay. However, if there is some sort of personal gain, even though it
may also be in the best interests of the whole, would be immoral. By that standard, I would think
that it would at least be somewhat of a “win/win situation” if it just so happens to benefit the
whole as well as the individual, but Kant would not see it this way. As for problems with the
utilitarian consequentialist position, the obvious issue is that the individual is not considered as
much as with Kant’s deontological ethical position. The utilitarian position is very different for it
is to make the greatest good for the greatest number of people, the majority. If I had to choose
between the two, I would have to say I would choose Kant’s deontological ethical position since
it is very appealing to me in the sense that it appeals to the individual, and much more emphasis
is given to the idea of the “Golden Rule”, which it would appear is very similar to Kant. As an
individual, I would prefer this position much more, because I believe in the “Golden Rule”, for
which Kant’s ethics seem to be based on, or vice versa.
