Compare and contrast Immanuel Kant's views on moral actions (chapter 11) with the views of utilitarians such as Jeremy Bentham and/or John Stuart Mill (chapter 12).

Kant’s Theory of Moral Action and Utilitarianism: A Comparative Account Author’s Name The Institutional Affiliation Course Number and Name Instructor Name Assignment Due Date Introduction In the realm of moral philosophy, two prominent philosophical views, Emmanuel Kant’s theory of moral action and the contrasting theory of utilitarianism, stand out as the most practical and debatable approaches to the issue of human morality. Likewise, these theories present a remarkable contrast of two entirely different approaches to the same question; for the same reason, assessing their proposition facilitates rational understanding of the worth of moral actions of humans. Kant’s views on moral action are based on the principle of deontology; accordingly, he considers a human action moral only if a sense of duty drives it (Soccio, 2004). However, the philosophy of utilitarianism, as proposed by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, is based on the principle of utilitarianism. Accordingly, this theory judges the morality of human actions based on the outcomes of that action; hence, if a person’s action intends to bring about happiness or good to others (Soccio, 2004). As their propositions indicate, both theories contradict each other in evaluating the morality of human actions; when Kant’s theory disapproves of an action as a moral act because it only focuses on the outcome, utilitarianism appreciates it as a moral action since its outcomes are positive. In this paper, therefore, I will thoroughly compare both theories and use examples of realistic ethical dilemmas to argue that Kant’s philosophy of morality as a duty holds more water than the philosophy of utilitarianism. For instance, by following this philosophy, a person would always perform a moral act no matter whether its consequences are good or bad for them. However, if a person follows utilitarianism philosophy, they would only act morally when they find its results are useful, and for the same reason, this action would lose its credibility. Using the counterargument against Kant’s philosophy that it lends morality a rigid and inflexible character, I would argue that the presence of a fixed touchstone to evaluate the morality of an action is the only way to differentiate a moral action from an act of utilitarianism. Comparison between Theory of Moral Action and Utilitarianism Kant’s theory of moral action is a thorough philosophical proposition that establishes a theoretical framework based on the role of goodwill in human action; this framework facilitates the true nature of human moral actions using rational faculties. Kant’s focus in his theory is the intention behind a moral act and not on the consequences of this act; for this purpose, he suggests that based on the principles of deontology, if a person does an act with goodwill, his act will be an emblem of a moral act regardless of its consequences (Soccio, 2004). Hence, a valuable act is not moral unless a good intention is behind it. Kant’s theory of moral action uses the universal principle of categorical imperative. This principle provides logical reasoning and rational argument to assess the morality of an act; accordingly, this principle focuses on assessing a moral action or dilemma in three domains: rationality, autonomy, and moral duty (Soccio, 2004). Hence, integration of the principle of categorical imperative lends Kant’s theory greater credence in comparison with utilitarianism in that Kant’s theory uses a systemic approach to understand the process of moral decision-making, which is not obvious in utilitarianism. Since the theory of moral action emphasizes using a rational approach to understand the intention behind an ethical act, this theory differentiates between acting to perform one’s duty and acting to the duty. This theory distinguishes a moral act from an act to satisfy personal ambition (Timmermann, 2013). For this purpose, one may take the example of two men helping a poor person for two different reasons; the first man helps them out their sense of duty, while the other helps the person as he feels sorry for them. Hence, the first person’s act is a moral act as it does not focus on personal satisfaction or the outcome of the action. In comparison with Kant’s theory of moral action, the postulates of the theory of utilitarianism present a completely contrasting picture. As the name suggests, this theory of morality considers all human acts moral if carried out to bring about happiness or comfort. In other words, according to a researcher, this theory assesses the morality of human action based on its consequences; therefore, if a human act produces well for others, it is a moral act regardless of the actor's intention (Soccio, 2004). Hence, instead of rationally evaluating an action based on its intention, it only considers the positive outcome of an action a basis of its morality. One of the most prominent proponents of the theory of utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill, took inspiration from his predecessor, Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy of hedonism, which does not focus on moral or ethical pleasure. However, with certain modifications, Mill seconded Bentham’s philosophy in the form of the theory of utilitarianism, which evaluates all human acts on the criterion of the degree of pleasure they produce for people (Soccio, 2004). In reality, utilitarianism traces its roots to the philosophy of ancie...