Kantianism and Utilitarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantianism 

The two big ethical systems that people instinctively use are:

1. Kantianism from Immanuel Kant

2. Utilitarianism from John Stuart Mill

__________________

Kantianism: More about individuals.

Utilitarianism: More about groups, especially companies, leaders, and politicians.

__________________

Kantianism:  Motivation, Will, and Duty

Utilitarianism:  Consequentialism

From Dictionary:

consequentialism
noun Philosophy

the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.

__________________

Kantianism:  Duty: the highest moral action that we can perform, even though it has bad consequences for ourselves.
In each of the cases of acting from duty, the person either must overcome some opposing inclination or must at least act without the help of inclination.

definition: (inclination for/to/toward): an interest in or liking for something.

Kantianism:  Categorical Imperative--two tests for an action that you take:

1. Would you like to live in a world where everybody did that?

2. Always and only treat people as ends in themselves and not means to an end that you want.

__________________

Utilitarianism from John Stuart Mill:

Mills thought that individuality was good. "whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called, and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men. . . . . . it is only the cultivation of individuality which produces, or can produce, well-developed human beings, . . ." (p. 193).

The Pleasure Principle.

People voluntarily join groups.

The Calculus of happiness gets ridiculous sometimes:

If 10 people have a happiness factor of 8 and 3 people have a happiness factor of 10, which group do you go with?

* *

Factors in how leaders choose:
1. Quantity of people.

2. Quality of experience.

The weakness in the Utilitarianism system is: in a majority wins approach there are always some losers and "the least of these" get left out.

If you follow the Kantian system, you will do the right thing, even though the government's laws may be wrong. His Critique of Practical Reason (1788) affirms the existence of an absolute moral law—the categorical imperative.

* * * *

From Dictionary:

utility
noun ( pl. -ties)
1 the state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial

From "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation" (1789) by Jeremy Bentham:

p. 40 Chapter 2  Of Principles adverse to that of Utility

1. If the principle of utility be a right principle to be governed by, and that in all cases, it follows from what has been just observed, that whatever principle differs from it in any case must necessarily be a wrong one. To prove any other principle, therefore, to be a wrong one, there needs no more than just to show it to be what it is, a principle of which the dictates are in some point or other different from those of the principle of utility : to state it is to confute it (prove it wrong).

2. A principle may be different from that of utility in two ways:
1. By being constantly opposed to it: this is the case with a principle which may be termed the principle of asceticism.
2. By being sometimes opposed to it, and sometimes not, as it may happen: this is the case with another, which may be termed the principle of 'sympathy' and 'antipathy.'
Ascetic is a term that has been sometimes applied to Monks. It comes from a Greek word which signifies 'exercise.' The practices by which Monks sought to distinguish themselves from other men were called their Exercises. These exercises consisted in so many contrivances they had for tormenting themselves. By this they thought to ingratiate themselves with the Deity. For the Deity, said they, is a Being of infinite benevolence: now a Being of the most ordinary benevolence is pleased to see others make themselves as happy as they can: therefore to make ourselves as unhappy as we can is the way to please the Deity. If any body asked them, what motive they could find for doing all this? Oh! said they, you are not to imagine that we are punishing ourselves for nothing: we know very well what we are about. You are to know, that for every grain of pain it costs us now, we are to have a hundred grains of pleasure by and by. The case is, that God loves to see us torment ourselves at present: indeed he has as good as told us so. But this is done only to try us, in order just to see how we should behave: which it is plain he could not know, without making the experiment. Now, then, from the satisfaction it gives him to see us make ourselves as unhappy as we can make ourselves in this present life, we have a sure proof of the satisfaction it will give him to see us as happy as he can make us in a life to come. . . . . . .

16. The principle of sympathy and antipathy is most apt to err on the side of severity.

King James the First of England had conceived a violent antipathy against Arians: two of whom he burnt. This gratification he procured himself without much difficulty: the notions of the times were favorable to it. . . . He also wrote a furious book, called 'A Counterblast to Tobacco,' against the use of that drug, which Sir Walter Raleigh had then lately introduced. Had the notions of the times co-operated with him, he would have burnt the Anabaptist and the smoke of tobacco in the same fire. However, he had the satisfaction of putting Raleigh to death afterwards, though for another crime.

He sponsored the translation of the Bible that was named after him: the Authorised King James Version.