Ethical Perspectives
 Promoting international dialogue between fundamental and applied ethics
  Aims and Scope
  Editorial Team
  Information for Authors and Book Reviewers
  Contact Information
  Monograph Series

Recent issue  21/1 (2014)
Introduction: Tendencies Towards Environmental Autocracy and Technocracy
(Stijn Neuteleers)
A Defence of (Deliberative) Democracy in the Anthropocene
(Simon Niemeyer)
Ends, Means, Beginnings. Environmental Technocracy, Ecological Deliberation or Embodied Disagreement?
(Amanda Machin)
Climate Change, Neutrality and the Harm Principle
(Augustin Fragnière)
Nature Restoration. Avoiding Technological Fixes, Dealing with Moral Conflicts
(Glenn Deliège)
Book Reviews
(reviewers )
Ethical Perspectives
Issue : 8/1 (March - 2001)
Kant and the Utilitarians
Tore Nordenstam
   Page : 29 - 35
  One of the standard manoeuvres in contemporary moral philosophy is to present Kant's ethics and utilitarianism as alternative ethical theories. New students learn that there are two main types of ethical theory, those which are consequence-based and those which are not. The first type is called teleological ethics, the second one is called deontological ethics. As typical examples of teleological ethical theories, one refers to classical utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill) and such 20th-century developments as rule utilitarianism (R.B. Brandt and others) and preference utilitarianism (R.M. Hare). As typical examples of deontological ethical theorists, one refers to Immanuel Kant and W.D. Ross.

To illustrate and clarify the difference between teleological and deontological ethics, students are often submitted to exercises which ask for Kantian and utilitarian solutions to philosophical dilemmas of various sorts, drawn both from literary classics like Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment and from other sources. A typical example will run along the following lines. There is unrest in the population. The government authorities think that order can be restored if a certain person is condemned for things which he hasn't done.

But the people believe he is the culprit. Would it be morally right to sacrifice a human scapegoat in such a case? What would a utilitarian say to this, and what would a Kantian say? Usually, the exercises are presented in such a way that the students will tend to think that Kantians would always condemn punishing the innocent, whilst utilitarians might come to different conclusions, depending on how they estimate the long-term consequences of punishing the innocent.
 174,03 Kb
Back  to  Ethical Perspectivescontact© 2014 - Ethical Perspectives - p/a Damiaanplein 9 bus 5306 - 3000 Leuven - Phone +32 (0)16/32.38.29