The nature of utilitarianism is based on the idea of consequences emerging from right or wrong actions from individuals. The theory of utilitarianism suggests that actions are right if they bring good outcomes; actions are wrong if they bring unhappiness. Thus, utilitarianism encourages people to pursue good things due to their moral rightness. The model also emphasizes on the need to bring pleasure without causing any harm. Based on the model of utilitarianism, individuals should seek to maximize pleasure while reducing pain. John Stuart Mill supported the principle of utilitarianism, arguing that actions are usually right when they bring happiness to the individuals. On the other hand, wrong actions usually bring unhappiness and trouble to the individuals involved. Both Bentham and Mill supported the concepts underlying utilitarianism, as they believed that all actions should bring happiness and joy to the society. For instance, Bentham had raised his strong arguments against cruelty to animals. They also thought that capital punishment is an unacceptable way of punishing criminals. However, they advocated for the reforming of the criminals. Mill also suggested that all actions are done to benefit the entire world. Mill advocated for subordinates’ rules such as common sense as a familiar way of promoting happiness in the society. Kant’s Deontological ethics only uses people to obtain their demands, which is disrespectful and ignores the power of moral legislations.
Kant’s deontological ethics approach explains that the moral worth of an individual’s action is evaluated by the nature of human will. Kant highly regarded the human will as the only thing in the world that can be said to be good. In most occasions, good will is supported by moral duty and proper legal frameworks. The categorical imperatives in Kantian ethics help in creating a boundary of the duty of the individual’s actions. According to Kant’s suggestions, the maintenance of true moral proportion is a relevant categorical imperative that is not defined by people’s identity. This helps in developing a universal law that can act without any form of contradiction. Categorical imperatives also comprise the imperfect duties that rely on individual’s reasoning. Such duties are based on subjective minds without any room for interpretation. They also support the rational actions done by people in the society. It further argues that free will helps in the provision of rational actions. Most importantly, the categorical imperative of the concept of humanity is crucial. It suggests that people should act in a manner that means you approve of someone acting towards you.
Based on the existence of both accounts, I think that utilitarianism is more plausible than the Kant’s deontological ethics approach. Utilitarianism advocates for people performing actions that bring pleasure and happiness in their lives. This forms the basis for moral actions and rightness in the society. On the other hand, Kant’s deontological ethics supports human will in all actions performed. It is difficult to allow the universality of individuals’ subjective decisions in human actions. This overlooks the role of moral regulations and laws that form the guiding principles of any society. I also think that utilitarianism supports the moral regulations and laws as it encourages people to perform good actions.
Rand argued that there is need to uphold positive unity of interests among rational and independent persons. This means that no individuals should be forced by another to act in certain ways in order to promote their long term self interests and ambitions. The main principles of ethical egoism are to promote a person’s self-interests. This implies the pressure cited by Rand’s suggestions to keep the independence and freedom of individuals in the society. Rand insisted that the main goal in a person’s life is to achieve their own self-interests. In spite of all, Rand appreciated the value of an individual to another, but emphasized on the need to maintain freedom for the individual’s own decision-making. This would help in promoting benefits received by both individuals. Rand opposed the attempts to equate the model of ethical egoism with selfishness. He argued that promoting self-interests could be in seeking to assist other people or failing to cause them harm. Therefore, Rand’s arguments show strong support for the ideals of ethical egoism in the society.
Medlin’s response to Rand’s argument was that ethical egoism should not be categorized as a moral theory. According to Medlin, egoism is not rational, as the basis of Rand’s arguments does not offer any rational principle of human thinking and actions. In addition, he argued that the ethical egoism theory is full of inconsistencies that cannot be acceptable in morality. Such inconsistent attitudes and feelings towards humans are dangerous in the society. Based on Medlin’s view, he argues that the egoism theory provides arbitral principles and mere claims that cannot make the theory moral. Most importantly, it indicates the lack of universal and categorical ideas in the theory. I support Medlin’s response to Rand’s arguments on the lack of universality and inconsistencies in the ethical egoism theory. The theory should be more categorical on its arguments to make it valid and acceptable as a moral theory.