Introduction
Morality is one component of philosophy that will at all times be researched, and most topics in ethics, will never be perceived the same by every person. There are many customs that have many diverse ideas concerning the way an individual’s life ought to be lived out. Factors such as religion, mental condition, and poverty influence people perspectives in ethics.
A number of people think that the mental condition people or the purpose for those people committing crimes should be considered when making a ruling. Others believe that regardless of the state, an offense is an offense, and no sympathy should be felt for the person.
Generally, these viewpoints are classified into two classes: utilitarian, which would grant freedom to the offender based on the conditions, and Kantian, where an offense is an offense, despite the intentions involved (Damon 67). This paper will compare the two ethical perspectives. It will as well identify the strengths and weaknesses of each theory and present general views of the theories.
Utilitarian vs. Kant
The ethical approaches of the Utilitarian and the Kantian perspectives both examine ethics. The Kantian approach examines ethics based first on inspiration and second on deed, Utilitarian approaches examine ethics based on the deeds themselves. Kant does not concentrate on the repercussions of deeds as the measure of their ethics; instead, he focuses on the reason behind the deeds.
Utilitarian ethics, however, evaluates the effect of any deed on people and establishes that if actions, despite inspiration, harm others, then they are unethical.
It is upon such a key aspect that the disparity between the Utilitarian and Kantian ethical premises rest. According to Kant, a person, since he or she is able to make decisions, set goals, and guide his or her action by reason, and that because ethical laws are the laws of reason, and a rational being is the incarnation of those laws, then a person is inherently able to be an ethical agent.
Utilitarian view, however, perceives only the action and how the action affects other people. Therefore, to carry out crime, despite the intention, is a physical attack upon the pleasure of the casualty and therefore is ethically unjustifiable (DeVries 55).
Strengths and Weaknesses
Whereas Kantian and Utilitarian approaches failed to faultlessly define the boundaries of ethics, Kantianism theory was determined to be more acceptable because of its inflexible design and more obvious principle between true and false, and hence more competently prevents people rationalizing ethical standards as a way of attaining their leanings.
In view of Utilitarianism, the boundaries that describe true against false are determined through the impact of that deed. If the impact is optimistic, then that deed would be termed ethical. The approach of Utilitarianism argues that all deeds are carried out based on attaining happiness and exception from pain. However it must be understood that Utilitarian theory is not to attain the best happiness for individual actions, but rather have the best pleasure jointly (Damon 68).
Overall Evaluation
Both theories recommend diverse analytical models for morality. Kant is specifically concerned with sorting out the required elements in morality from the rest, which results in his separation between pure morality and realistic philosophy. This concern is not on the Utilitarianism schedule, which implies that from Kantianism perspective, Utilitarian morality is an amazing mixture of ethical and practical issues.
Works Cited
Damon, Anthony. The Moral Child, Nurturing Children’s Natural Moral Growth. New York, NY: Free Press, 2008. Print.
DeVries, Richard. Moral Classrooms, Moral Children, Creating a Constructionist Atmosphere in Early Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2007. Print.