@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote: They are, however, irreconcilable. There is no consequentialist component in Kant's ethics.
Perhaps there isn't in
Metaphysik der Sitten, but I definitely remember him discussing such components in
Kritik der Praktischen Vernunft. But it's been a few decades since I read this book, so I will tentatively accept your allegation as true.
Even so, however, your conclusion does not follow, Kant's Categorical Imperative has a
slot into which moral agents can
plug any ethical maxim they want. The only constraint on that maxim is that the agent can rationally wish for it to become a universal law. Hence, there can be Kantian Christians who act on the maxim "Ask yourself what Jesus would do, and follow his example." There also could be Kantians boy scouts who act on the maxim, "be prepared, and do a good turn daily". There could be Kantian Kennedy-followers who act on the maxim: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Indeed, as far as the Categorical Imperative is concerned, there could even be KKKKs---Kantian Ku Klux Klansmen---who act on the maxim: "Keep the master race pure and in charge". We may not think we could reasonably wish for that maxim to become a universal law, and I am sure Immanuel Kant would have resented the latter kind. But the Klan does, and hence its members could be consistent Kantians. My point is that the Categorical Imperative is open to a variety of moral maxims. Why can't "maximize pleasure and minimize suffering" be one of them?
joefromchicago wrote:According to Kant, one must act according to the categorical imperative regardless of the consequences. If someone who wants to kill your friend shows up at your door and asks if your friend is there, you're not entitled to lie in order to save your friend's life, since lying is contrary to the categorical imperative.
Please show me where Kant says that lying, under all circumstances, is incompatible with all variants of the Categorical Imperative.
joefromchcicago wrote: A utilitarian, in contrast, would probably have no problem in justifying a lie in those circumstances, since it's more utile to save someone's life by lying to a murderer than telling the truth and allowing an innocent person to be killed.
On that part, at least, we agree.