.
Now to look exclusively at Kant's ethics, then I will examine the ethics of utilitarian, and then show how they are similar and how they are different. To have a quick overview of the main differences before going in depth, I would like to refer to the table below:.
Utilitarianism Kant's Theory.
Only consequences matter Consequences do not matter.
Morality is closely connected to desire/pleasure Morality is based on reason.
No absolute rules (act) Morality provides absolute rules.
Motives and intentions do not matter Intentions are of highest importance.
Persons are not intrinsically valuable Persons have intrinsic worth.
Morality is an empirical matter (what we have learned by experience) Morality is not empirical, it is rational.
According to Kantian ethics there is an importance of good will and good intentions. Kant thinks that there is a difference between actions in accordance with duty and actions for the sake of duty. Actions that are in accordance with duty carry self- interest and inclination, which Kant opposes. Kant is trying to cancel out these emotions (desires, and inclinations), because he believes that emotions cannot be trusted and can get us into trouble. For Kant reason is different, because it is solid and unchanging. According to Kant, his role of reason is to begin with pure reason, that tells us what is right and dutiful, and we should desire what are duty is. In opposition, Kant opponents begin with desires/inclinations, and what pleases us. Kant's opponents claim that reason's job is to help attain your desires in the most efficient way.
Kant's fundamental moral theory is the categorical imperative, which applies to all free and rational beings. The categorical imperative has the form: Every rational agent ought to do X! The first formulation of the categorical imperative is the universal law, in which it states: act only on that maxim (reason for acting) through which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law.