1

Ethical Frameworks and Decision-Making: A Comparative Analysis of Mill's

Utilitarianism and Kant's Deontological Theory

Students Name: Skylar Mitchell

Course Code and Name: Introduction to Philosophy

Instructor: Dr. Waskey

 2

Introduction

When faced with difficult moral choices, we rely heavily on ethical reasoning to help

guide our judgment. This paper compares and contrasts utilitarianism from John Stuart Mill and

deontology from Immanuel Kant. Rescue I and Rescue II are thought experiments through which

we can examine each philosopher's advice to the rescuer in these hypothetical situations. In

addition, we'll go into Mill's utilitarianism and Kant's Categorical Imperative, both in their

original and revised forms. Finally, the essay will criticize Mill and Kant and argue for the

superiority of one ethical approach based on sound reasoning.

Mill's Utilitarianism: The Principle of Utility

According to Bauer's portrayal of Mill's utilitarianism, the ethically appropriate course of

conduct is the one that maximizes the sum of people's happiness or utility. The Principle of

Utility states that an activity is righteous if it increases the happiness of the greatest number of

people impacted by it.

Rescue I: Application of the Principle of Utility

In Rescue I, the rescuer is frantically working to save five individuals from the rising

flood, while in Rescue II, there is only one person in need of Rescue. Mill would advise the

rescuer to prioritize saving the other five and to leave the one victim to perish. The Principle of

Utility, which places a premium on maximizing happiness, justifies this choice because it saves

the greatest possible number of lives. The "counting" here determines how each person the

rescuer has helped is doing. Mill would argue that the rescuer should put saving the lives of the

five individuals in danger first since doing so will bring about more happiness in the long run.

Rescue II: Application of the Principle of Utility

 3

In Rescue II, the rescuer faces a new challenge: the path to a group of five individuals in

peril is small and rocky, and one is trapped there. To save the five, the rescuer would have to run

over the trapped person, guaranteeing the majority's life while assuring the trapped individual's

death. In Rescue II, the rescuer should run over the captive person per Mill's utilitarianism. In

light of the Principle of Utility, the rescuer would be wise to consider how their actions will

affect the situation. Sacrificing the life of the captive person would have a more significant

positive impact on the lives of the five persons who would be freed; the rescuer maximizes

enjoyment and minimizes suffering by taking this action.

Kant's Deontological Theory: The Categorical Imperative

According to Kucuk and Yildirim, Kant's deontological theory is grounded on the idea

that moral behavior is rooted in a sense of responsibility rather than considering the

consequences of one's conduct. He stresses the importance of universal ideals, arguing that

people have their own value and should be treated with dignity. The Categorical Imperative,

Kant's guiding moral guideline for deciding what behaviors are morally permissible, is central to

his theory.

Rescue I: Application of the Categorical Imperative

In Rescue I, the rescuer must decide whether to save five people from the incoming tide

or one from a different calamity. The first version of Kant's Categorical Imperative, sometimes

known as the universalizability test, is useful for determining the moral path of action. The

rescuer's guiding principle in the first game, Rescue I, states, "I will prioritize saving the five

people over the single person." According to Kant, this maxim doesn't pass the universalizability

test since it views each individual just as a means to an end—the salvation of more people. Kant
 4

argues that people should respect the worth and dignity of others as ends in and of themselves.

Therefore, the rescuer should save both the group of five and the individual, as posited by Kant.

The rescuer supports Kantian ethics by placing a premium on human life and viewing saved lives

as an end in and of itself.

Rescue II: Application of the Categorical Imperative

To save a group of five individuals from an oncoming tide, the rescuer in Rescue II must

choose whether to drive over a stranded human on a narrow, rocky road. In this context, the

principle of humanity or the formula of the end comes into play from Kant's second version of

the Categorical Imperative. Rescue II's guiding principle might be stated as follows: "I will

sacrifice the life of the trapped individual to save the group of five." Since the captive person is

seen as expendable in freeing the group as a whole, Kant would argue that this maxim goes

against the idea of humanity. Kant stresses acknowledging and appreciating each person's

inherent worth and dignity. The rescuer has a moral obligation to avoid running over the trapped

person, according to Kant. Kerstein claims that Kant argues that it is immoral to deliberately

injure or sacrifice another person's life for the benefit of others. The rescuer should recognize the

rights and inherent worth of all six people involved and look into other means of saving the

group of five and the imprisoned individual.

The First Version of the Categorical Imperative

Individuals should conduct themselves per maxims that they can will to become universal

rules, as stated in Duindam's original Categorical Imperative. People need to consider whether or

not their behavior can be universally implemented without resulting in inconsistency. For

example, in Rescue I, the adage may be stated as "I will prioritize saving the five people over the
 5

single person." Kant would assess the universal applicability of this maxim in the original

Categorical Imperative. The notion of seeing others as goals in themselves would be undermined

if people consistently put the group's welfare ahead of the individual's safety. According to Kant,

the rescuer owes it to the six people and the lone survivor to try to save all of them.

Rescue II's guiding principle is "I will sacrifice the life of the trapped individual to save

the group of five." Using Duindam's illustration, Kant would evaluate the universal applicability

of the original Categorical Imperative. The notion of preserving individuals' intrinsic worth and

dignity would be undermined if this maxim were universalized, with everyone in identical

situations sacrificing one life to save more. Therefore, according to Kant, the rescuer has an

ethical obligation to avoid running over the trapped person and instead look for other ways to

free them and the rest of the group.

The Second Version of the Categorical Imperative

Treating people as ends in themselves rather than as a means to an end is emphasized in

the second iteration of the Categorical Imperative, often known as the principle of humanism or

the formula of the end itself. Let's see how it works in this context. In both Rescue I and Rescue

II, the rescuer must acknowledge the worth and dignity of both the group of five and the

individual in danger, as outlined in the revised Categorical Imperative. Kant would argue that it

would violate the trapped person's inherent value to treat them as merely a tool for rescuing the

greater number. Therefore, the rescuer is ethically obligated to find a way out of the predicament

that does not involve willfully harming or sacrificing one person to save another. Suppose the

rescuer is to follow Kant's second version of the Categorical Imperative. In that case, they must

put the equal moral worth of all individuals first and work toward a solution that respects the

rights and dignity of every person involved.

 6

Criticism of both Mill and Kant

Boddington cites the difficulty of quantifying and comparing various forms of happiness

or pleasure as a criticism of Mill's utilitarianism and Kant's. Some people think it's impossible to

put a dollar amount on happiness since it may be experienced in many different ways, and people

have varying tastes and priorities regarding what makes them happy. This causes one to question

the neutrality and consistency of the utilitarian analysis used to determine the righteous action to

take. Utilitarianism, in its pursuit of the greatest possible happiness for the greatest number of

people, may overlook the value of individual rights and justice, with tragic consequences.

However, Kant's deontological ethics has been criticized for being too dogmatic and

leading to moral absolutism. Kant's insistence on the absolute truth of ethical principles raises the

possibility of moral ambiguity and conflict under challenging circumstances. Those who disagree

with this method say it's too rigid and doesn't consider variables like context or potential

outcomes when deciding how to act in an ethically gray area. The categorical imperative may not

help resolve moral disputes or offer unambiguous rules for conduct, despite providing universal

ethical principles.

I favor the latter when comparing Mill's utilitarianism to Kant's deontological ethics.

Utilitarianism provides a thorough framework for determining an action's moral worth by

considering its effects on people's happiness. Utilitarianism prioritizes the welfare and interests

of all individuals by maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering for the greatest good of

society. Furthermore, our innate propensity to seek pleasant outcomes and avoid damage is

consistent with utilitarianism's emphasis on encouraging happiness and well-being. It values

people for who they are and aims to improve society. Utilitarianism is a realistic and ethically
 7

persuasive ethical paradigm since it considers action consequences and seeks the greatest overall

benefit.

Conclusion

The Rescue I and II scenarios provide a helpful lens through which to compare and

contrast the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill and the deontological theory of Immanuel Kant.

Mill's utilitarianism is based on the so-called "Principle of Utility," which he claims justifies

putting the group's happiness ahead of that of any single person. However, Kant's deontological

theory, founded on the Categorical Imperative, promotes seeing people as ends in themselves by

emphasizing their inherent worth and dignity. Since both the group and the individual have rights

and moral superiority, Kant contends that it is morally obligatory to save them both. The

utilitarian framework considers individuals' outcomes and general welfare, making it a more

comprehensive and practical ethical framework than the deontological one.

 8

Work Cited

Bauer, William A. "Virtuous vs. utilitarian artificial moral agents." AI & SOCIETY 35.1 (2020):

263-271.

Boddington, Paula. "Normative Ethical Theory and AI Ethics." AI Ethics: A Textbook.

Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023. 229-276.

Duindam, Guus. "On the Singularity of the Categorical Imperative." Southwest Philosophy

Review 39.1 (2023): 165-173.

Kerstein, Samuel. "2. Dignity and treating others merely as means1." The Changing Ethos of

Human Rights (2021): 35.

Kucuk, Eyup Engin, and Caglar Yildirim. "Is “Categorical Imperative” Metaversal?: A Kantian

Ethical Framework for Social Virtual Reality." Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2023.