Evaluating dilemma : Kant vs Util

Growing up, we are regularly taught about morals: don’t lie, don’t steal, work hard, don’t be rude. They all make sense in general life because if everyone is immoral, then society will crumble. But what happens when we face ethical dilemmas? An ethical dilemma is situations where an action can be deemed moral or immoral based on your point of view; for example, even though killing is terrible, would you kill Hitler? Or would you steal from a thief?

When deciding what action is moral or immoral, there are two primary schools of thought: Kantian or Utilitarianism.

The word ‘Kantian’ describes the framework of morality set by Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century philosopher. Kant believed that morality stems from reason and is the same for everyone. Therefore, any actions caused by our desire are not related to morality because the desires are different for everyone. For example, working hard stems from the desire to achieve a goal; thus, it is neither moral or immoral to work hard. Kant builds on this by stating that for actions to be moral, they have to do for the moral rules and not the consequences. He breaks down the moral rules ( or categorical imperatives as he calls them) into three forms (formulations) :

1. Only actions that can be done by everyone must be used.
2. Treat others as you want to be treated
3. Your actions cannot affect the freedom of others

Through this rule, we can deduce that killing, lying, or stealing are immoral because

1. If everyone does them, then everyone is dead, or there will be no stability in society.
2. You do not want to be killed, lied to, or stolen from.
3. They do not allow others to make their own decisions.

Now Kantian ethics sounds excellent, but when you look at the ethical dilemmas. Not so much. For example, let’s imagine that 20 people are all going to die. But if you kill one of them, then the rest survive. According to Immanuel Kant, you should not kill the one person because killing is wrong.

This is where Utilitarianism comes in. Util dictates that morality is based on pleasure; therefore, the actions that cause the most pleasure should be taken. In the scenario above, Utilitarians would argue that one person was going to die in either world (all dead or just one dead), so by killing the one person, you save 19 people, increasing the pleasure in the world. The majority of the population agree with Util because the human mind is wired to weigh the cost and benefit of action.

Utilitarianism is comprised of 2 versions :

1. Act Utilitarian
2. Rule Utilitarian

Act Util is a strict form where robbing a bank to distribute it to the poor is moral because it increases the pleasure of those in poverty with comparatively less impact on the bank customers. Rule Util instead follows a set of rules that, in general, increases the pleasure and also looks at the long term impact. Therefore, robbing a bank is terrible because it normalizes robbery, and when everyone starts robbing, then the economy will be impacted and in turn, an increase in poverty. It also hooks the poor onto free money, leaving them no incentive to work. Instead, by providing with skills, improving their living conditions, and providing them with food would help them in the long term.

There is another major hole in the Util’s impact calculus (weighing the good and bad effects of an action): the 51-49 problem. Will you be willing to harm 49% of the population to improve the lives of 51% of the population?

Util and Kantian ethics can be quite confusing, but it comes down to a simple issue of priority. Util tells that morality is only based on the consequences, and Kantian ethics states that it is the actions that matter.