Kantianism and utilitarianism
O’Neill uses the formula of the end in itself to simplify Kant’s moral theory. The theory assumes that humanity should be treated as an end as opposed to using mere means. In other words, using someone’s mere means is to make them involved in a scheme of action and activities they could not be in principle consent. Treating someone as an end is a sign of respecting an individual to be a rational individual with own maxims. Therefore, one has to have a good understanding of Kantian ethics. It helps one to realize the advantages of Kantianism over utilitarianism.
Kantianism and utilitarianism use different ways to determine if the act performed by individuals is right or wrong. Kant requires individuals to take into consideration of maxims, intentions of a specific action. Kantian has a belief that the life of human being is valuable because human is the givers of rational life. Therefore, human being should be treated as rational beings that are capable of making rational decisions and choices. The theory states that human beings should have rational behaviour which cannot be used purely for happiness or enjoyment of another. On the other hand, it is believed by utilitarians that people should be involved with doing things that can produce the greatest happiness. The only problem with the action is that it requires using individuals are mere means. It can also lead to sacrificing many lives of people for the greater good. The point has been expanded by Christopher Bennett by stating that utilitarians justify punishing innocent people if it is believed that the action will bring sufficient and significant-good effect. Besides, promises that strongly bind our society together can be compromised and broken if the result will benefit people. It applies to all promises including the ones that are made to the loved ones. Utilitarianism sometimes encourages sacrificing the happiness of an individual or life. The action aims to promote the highest amount of happiness and the least amount of misery to society.
When using Kantian ethics, it is easier to determine the action is morally wrong compared to when using utilitarian ethics. Kantian theory provides more precision than utilitarianism when the data is scarce. It easier for someone to determine if an individual is being used as a mere means even if the effect of human enjoyment is not relevant. Kantians only take into consideration of the proposal for an event that happens to them. The proposals are then checked to confirm they do not use mere means. In contrast, utilitarianism makes a comparison of all the available actions to determine the one with the best effects. Utilitarianism has a larger scope than Kantianism hence making it a timelier process. The method of decision-making process involving the calculation of potential benefits and coast is of events is time-consuming. Therefore, little time to promote happiness is left hence achieving the utilitarian goal.