Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism DB Video

Moral Dilemma Presented

• Scenario: A sinister man with an axe knocks at your door, inquiring about your friend’s whereabouts.

• Question: Is it morally acceptable to lie to protect your friend?

Immanuel Kant's Perspective

• Kant asserts it is NOT morally acceptable to lie, even in this scenario.

• Defines the imperative to "tell the truth" as a categorical imperative.

• Categorical Imperative:

  • An absolute moral duty that applies universally without exceptions.

  • Maintains that all actions must adhere to this principle regardless of the situation's consequences.

Consequences of Lying

• If you lie to the axe man and provide your friend's location, and this leads to a harmful outcome, Kant argues that the moral weight lies on you.

• Example: If your friend tries to escape and encounters the axe man, their fate becomes partly your responsibility because you chose to lie.

Contrast with Utilitarianism

• Utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their consequences, aiming for the greatest happiness.

• A utilitarian would weigh the outcomes of telling the truth against the outcomes of lying.

• May argue that lying is justified if it leads to a better overall outcome (i.e., saving a life).

Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarian Ethics

• Kant's deontological approach:

• Focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions rather than solely on consequences.

• Certain actions (like lying) are categorically wrong regardless of potential positive results.

• Ethical implications suggest that moral actions must align with universal laws instead of situational outcomes.

Conclusion

• Kant's deontological ethics often leads to rigid moral standards that do not account for the nuances of specific situations.

• This presents a fundamental disagreement with utilitarian approaches, which prioritize outcomes over moral duties.