Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative contrasts greatly to the principle of Utilitarianism – with Utilitarianism you act in such a way that will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number, whereas, with the Categorical Imperative, you are intended to act a certain way because it is your duty to do so. Unlike Utilitarianism, which relies upon teleological thinking, to correctly do ones duty, one must make decisions whilst excluding the influences of the actions’ effects, and our own inclinations. Thus, one must think in a deontological thinker, to a certain extent. Also, in order to make a moral decision, one must have a choice, so, if one cannot make a choice, then they do not need to make a morally correct decision. An example of this is, if you are tied up and are watching your friend being beaten up, and despite your best efforts, your binds won’t come lose, then you are acting in the only way you can. As you don’t have the option to help your friend, then you are not immoral for just watching. However, if you were to find your binds were lose, and thus, you have the option to help your friend, then you have a moral decision to make. If you chose to pretend you are still tightly tied, in order to justify not helping your friend, then you are acting immorally because you have the ability to make a choice. Thus, you only ought to do something if it is possible for you to do so.
Referring to the example of Jim (Jim is asked to kill one man or watch as all the men lined up are killed – the men are innocent of any crime and are going to be killed to set an example, to other Indians, by the uniformed men in charge), following Kant’s theory, should Jim kill one man, to save the rest? Kant stated that the action must be universally acceptable, in order to be moral. Thus, if Jim were to kill the man, it would only be a moral action, if killing were a universally acceptable action- which of course it is not. Secondly, another important part of Kant’s theory refers to humans, and how they should never be used as a means to an end. Instead, people should not be used as instruments for something else, no matter how worthy the aim may be. Thus, Jim would be killing the man in order to save the rest – so he would be using him as a means of achieving something else. Therefore, if he were to kill the man, in order to save the rest, his action would be immoral.
There are a great many flaws in both Act, and Rule, Utilitarianism. With regards Act Utilitarianism, problems arise regarding the universal consequences of an action and how pleasure is measured. For example, if in one instance, it is morally correct to break the law, chaos would occur should everyone do so – even if in all their individual cases, breaking the law is morally correct. Also, pleasure is a subjective idea – what some class as pleasure, others class as pain, so therefore instances such as the sadistic guards occur (where it is morally correct from them to torture a man, as they receive more pleasure from doing so, than the pain the man receives). The example of the sadistic guards also highlights another major weakness – one can justify almost anything, including torture and murder, whilst still claiming that the actions are moral. In relation to Rule Utilitarianism, its’ main weaknesses are that it doesn’t take the individual circumstances into account and a major question is, who decides upon the rules? Using this theory, one could also justify slavery. If the majority sets the rules by which the minority live, the majority are therefore in control of the minority and can set rules such as, ‘you must obey your master’.
Following the theory of Utilitarianism, in order to make decisions, so that they cause the greatest good for the greatest number, one can use the Hedonic Calculus. This calculus is there to help one to gage the outcome of the action, in reference to seven areas: intensity; duration; certainty; fecundity; remoteness; purity and extent. However, this is one of the major weaknesses for Utilitarianism, which makes it unsuitable for everyday decision making. It is based highly on ‘quantative measure’ – this refers to the number of people receiving pleasure, and for how long, thus it values pleasure in terms of number rather than quality. However, although this makes everyone equal, we don’t necessarily value everyone’s happiness equally. Within society, we logically value the happiness of an innocent child above that of a condemned murderer. Also, it is human nature to value the pleasure of those close to us more highly than that of strangers, so to use to calculus we must act against our instinct. For example, if you could ensure the happiness of your best friend, at the cost of the happiness of ten strangers – all of whom have committed a great sin - naturally you are likely to want to sacrifice the happiness of the majority, in order to help your friend. Another weakness of the Hedonic Calculus is the fact that it is simply impractical – one doesn’t have the time to follow the calculus whenever they have to make a moral decision.
As Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative states that mankind cannot be used as a means to an end, our behaviour is severely restricted. Sometimes, for example during war, sacrifices are necessary and therefore this theory is unsuitable for world politics. Another flaw is the way it is universal – the issue is, can two problems be treated in the same manner? A good example for this is, as self defence and murder are classed under the same maxim – a maxim about taking human life – are they actually the same, or should they be treated differently? Also, he rejects the teleological thinker’s view that consequences can help us to decide upon the right course of action. Thus, he proposes a ‘reason-based’ case for moral behaviour.
Kant’s theory has strengths as well, that make it more practical when decision-making. He makes a distinction between duty and inclination – we may be inclined to act out of personal preference, but morality is universal. Also, Kant’s theory is fair and treats all individuals equally – promoting an equal society – as no one person can be valued above the rest. Justification for an action is irrelevant as the moral value of an action comes from its intrinsic rightness in itself. Thus, justice is impartial and the universal character of the Categorical Imperative safeguards justice for individuals. Another major strength – which can also be preserved as a weakness – is that, as humans are the highest point of creation, they can only be treated as an end in themselves – not as a means to an end. Therefore, humans are not expendable, no matter how important the cause. So, this theory protects the rights of individuals and reduces the likelihood of one life being sacrificed – and thus valued less than another – for the sake of other human lives.
The Categorical Imperative and Utilitarianism each have their own strengths, which make them suitable with regards decision making. Utilitarianism has the added benefit of being sensitive to the individual circumstances, ensuring that the decision is completely appropriate for the issue in hand. Whereas, the Categorical Imperative relies upon a more general set of guidelines, and the principle of doing ones duty, simply because it is our duty to do so. Therefore, in terms of ensuring the best moral outcome for each individual situation, one might argue that Utilitarianism is the better theory to use.
However, Utilitarianism can be used to justify the most ‘immoral’ of actions – such as murder or theft. For example, a homeless man finds a wallet containing £50. He knows the wallet belongs to a very rich man who will barely notice it is missing. Thus, following the theory of Utilitarianism, it is better for the man to keep the wallet than return it, because he will received more pleasure from using the money in relation to the amount of pain the rich man will feel from losing it. The Categorical Imperative prevents this, such as with instances of lying, because for an action to be moral for one, it must be acceptable for all.
As well as providing justification for actions that break laws, and could thus cause chaos, Utilitarianism leaves individuals vulnerable. Such as with the example of Jim, it defends the sacrifice of one in order to benefit the majority – but who decides whom the individual is? Thus, people can be treated as a means to an end; therefore people are no longer equal. With regards this matter, the Categorical Imperative provides a much fairer outlook, stating that individuals are equal and that one can never justify sacrificing one, for the good of the many.
Also, the Categorical Imperative, as deontological theory, does not accept that sometimes, the consequences of an action can help us to decide on the right, moral way to act. However, Utilitarianism decisions are based purely on the outcome – but can one ever be sure of the consequences of an action? Unexpected events can happen to alter the results and therefore making a decision on the promise of a positive outcome may be unwise considering the results may not even occur – after all, no one can truly predict the future. So, although neither are perfect, with regards this issue, Kant’s theory offers the better way to make decisions.
To conclude, both have strengths and weakness, and each suite a different type of thinker (the Categorical Imperative is a deontological theory, whereas Utilitarianism is a theological theory). However, if forced to choose, Kant’s theory offers fewer flaws and is a more practical option for everyday life, and therefore is the more suitable theory, especially as Utilitarianism provides one with a way to morally justify dreadful actions and therefore is open to abuse.
