Mon 20 Mar, 2017 07:59 pm
I want to compare 2 prominent ethical theories: John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics. In this experiment the 2 moral theories are the dependent variables, and the scenario that I supply (below) will be the control variable.
Scenario: Hitting a person when that person lies to you.
Challenge: Summarize, as succinctly as possible (I recommend numbered steps), the methods that each of these theories would employ to decide how one should or shouldn't act in accordance with the fictitious scenario.
1. Since Kantian ethics requires you to form your action into a maxim it will likely be something like "When someone lies to me I will hit them", but feel free to change the wording on this. Utilitarianism should involve a straightforward evaluation of the scenario.
2. What I'm Looking For in your Answers:
i) Succinctness (again, I recommend listing numbered steps)
ii) Clarity (related to (2.i))
iii) Faithful Representations of both theories
3. Why I'm Posing this Challenge:
i) Both John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant wrote extensively about their ethical theories and supporting ideas, and yet I have noticed widely-ranging interpretations of how to put their theories into practice.
ii) I want to learn from the membership and see how my conceptions of each theory compare. Perhaps later I will offer my own run-downs of Mill's Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics, but for now I don't want to bias the results.
Looking forward to your replies. Many thanks in advance.