) Moral Judgement (Kant / Utilitarian.) ) Moral Judgement (Kant / Utilitarian.) First of all I want to state the Kantian and the Utilitarian views butt heads on this issue. The Kantian view is nonconsequential, that is as a matter of principle with the consequences be damned. The Utilitarian view is consequential with the results given as much consideration as possible. I will attempt to explain what I mean through some examples. Some school systems hand out condoms free of charge to their students.
The Utilitarian view would be that this is a good thing. They would state that by doing so they are stopping unwanted pregnancies that in turn could cost society. This program would help stop the spreading of diseases such as HIV, AIDS and syphilis. This also would lesson the burden on society. Kantian view would not be in favor of this program because it is considering the outcome of what might happen if the program were not in place.
They might feel it is the parents decision to make because it is their job to act in good will of their family and not the school systems. Another topic under much debate would be assisted suicide. The Kantian view is totally opposed to this. It is just wrong to kill someone. One cannot kill another person out of good will. If you were to apply this to the Universal Law it would not hold true and there for it is wrong.
On the other hand, the Utilitarian view would be open to this concept. How could we allow one to suffer knowing they are going to die in the end anyway? Would it be wrong to stop the suffering? How can one seek the greatest amount of happiness if they are suffering and are basically condemned to die? By assisting this individual we are also helping out his family by limiting their grief. We are also helping out society by freeing up a bed in the hospital for those individuals that could be healed and go on to lead a happy life. It could also save money if the person does not have insurance. The last example I want to use is the needle exchange program.
This is where drug users can exchange dirty needles for clean ones. This program also stops the spreading of diseases such as HIV and AIDS. The Utilitarian would also state that is lessons the burden on society. Drug users are also associated to crime and when they come into exchange needles help may be provided to get them off drugs and there fore lesson the crime rate and bring more happiness to society. The Kantian view would not be in favor of this program because it is considering the consequences of what would happen if community doesnt help.
They would state that drug use is not good will and not at all duty. If a drug user is breaking the law by using drugs and needles they should be punished. This punishment is not to be a deterrent but rather what is right because one breaks the law. I Think the Utilitarian view is better than the Kantian view because it does consider the outcomes of the event. Though I am not wholly sold on their concept. The Kantian view does not address the problem it just condemns it.
In the world today we all know what happens when a person breaks the law and so do the criminals yet; they still break the law. When someone is addicted to a drug it is out of their control to help themselves and society as a whole should step in and help. Their does come a time when you can help only so much and it is up to the individual to correct their own wrong but not in all circumstances. I think the best approach would be a happy medium between both views. Bibliography Vice & Virtue fourth edition Fred & Christina Sommers Philosophy Essays.