All Papers Will Follow Similar Directions To Help Your Paper

All papers will follow similar directions. To help your papers, feel free to watch this second video on Kant and this outline for how to write a good philosophy paper. Don't plagiarize. (Links to an external site.) Here are your directions: Write an intro with no more than three sentences with one sentence being your thesis . This follows the same directions as last time. You have two options, Utilitarianism is true or it's not .

Specify whether you believe Utilitarianism is true or not, and provide a clear, concise thesis statement that states your position and the fundamental reasons supporting it. Define key terms such as Utilitarianism and Deontology to ensure clarity. Describe the main differences between these two ethical systems, including their core principles and decision-making processes, illustrated through specific examples. Include and compare the perspectives of a notable philosopher—such as Immanuel Kant—and his unique understanding of ethics, emphasizing how his views oppose Utilitarian principles.

Paper For Above instruction

In contemporary ethical discourse, the question of whether Utilitarianism accurately captures moral truth remains a pivotal debate. I argue that Utilitarianism, despite its appeal in promoting overall happiness, fails to provide a comprehensive or morally adequate framework for ethical decision-making because it overlooks individual rights and moral integrity. This paper will demonstrate that Deontology, particularly Kantian ethics, offers a more morally rigorous approach by emphasizing duties and moral principles over consequentialist calculations.

Utilitarianism, primarily associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, asserts that the morality of an action depends solely on its outcomes—specifically, whether it maximizes happiness or pleasure and minimizes suffering. For example, a Utilitarian might justify sacrificing one innocent person if it results in saving many others, emphasizing the aggregate happiness. Conversely, Deontology, notably championed by Kant, maintains that moral actions are those performed out of duty and adhere to universal moral laws, such as the categorical imperative, which mandates acting according to maxims that can be consistently universally applied (Kant, 1785). For instance, Kant would argue that lying is inherently wrong, regardless of its potential utility, because it violates the moral law.

The fundamental opposition between Utilitarianism and Deontology lies in their approach to moral evaluation. Utilitarianism is consequentialist, focusing solely on the outcomes of actions, while Deontology emphasizes the inherent morality of actions themselves, independent of consequences. Kant’s perspective furthers this by insisting that moral duties are absolute and universal, providing a safeguard against morally questionable trade-offs that Utilitarianism may justify. For example, Utilitarianism might endorse torturing an innocent if it leads to greater overall happiness, whereas Kantian ethics forbids it categorically, asserting that individuals must be treated as ends in themselves (Kant, 1785).

One notable philosopher, Immanuel Kant, distinguishes his ethical view by emphasizing the importance of moral duty and the intrinsic worth of individuals. Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative instructs actions that could be willed as a universal law and that treat humanity always as an end in itself. This stands in opposition to the Utilitarian focus on consequences and aggregate well-being. For example, Kant would argue that stealing is morally wrong regardless of the beneficial outcomes it might produce, because it violates the principle of respecting others’ rights and autonomy.

Supporters of Utilitarianism might argue that its focus on happiness best promotes overall welfare and reduces suffering, making it a practical and morally acceptable system. Critics, however, highlight its potential to justify immoral acts—such as sacrificing the innocent—if those acts result in the greater good. Deontology’s strength lies in its moral consistency and respect for individual rights; it prevents sacrificing individual morality for the sake of the collective. This rigid rule-based approach, while sometimes criticized as inflexible, better safeguards against moral violations and aligns with our intuitive sense of moral justice.

Addressing objections, Utilitarian advocates might claim that Deontology ignores the practical necessity of maximizing happiness, potentially leading to harsh or unjust outcomes. Yet, this objection overlooks that moral principles grounded in duty reflect a deeper respect for moral integrity and long-term societal stability. Concessions to utilitarian concerns can be acknowledged; for instance, in limited contexts, a moral agent might prioritize certain utilitarian calculations without compromising fundamental moral duties. Nonetheless, a strict adherence to Kantian deontology provides a more consistent and morally defensible framework that upholds the dignity and rights of individuals.

In conclusion, while Utilitarianism offers an appealing vision of maximizing happiness, it ultimately falls short as a comprehensive ethical system because it can justify morally unacceptable actions. Deontology, particularly Kantian ethics, provides a more morally sound approach by emphasizing duties, principles, and respect for persons. Recognizing the strengths and limitations of both frameworks reveals the importance of a moral philosophy rooted in intrinsic rights and duties, which better supports justice, moral integrity, and human dignity.

References

• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism.
• Ross, W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Korsgaard, C. (1996). The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge University Press.
• Schall, J. (2004). A Theory of Morality. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Crane, T. (2015). Moral Philosophy. Routledge.
• Nagel, T. (1979). The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press.
• Parfit, D. (2011). On What Matters. Oxford University Press.