I will argue that the Categorical Imperative is a stronger principle than the Principle of Utility. The
Categorical Imperative asks that you only act in a manner that sets an example for everyone else, or
more specifically, you would act only as if you were setting a precedent for all human behavior. It can
also be phrased as treating humanity as an end and never using humanity as a means. In more simple
terms, that means treating others as objects of moral worth. In contrast, the Principle of Utility has no
relation to moral worth, and is entirely based around producing happiness, or ‘utility.’ Whatever action
produces the largest total happiness is the action that should be taken.
An example to consider when reviewing these principles is within the Trolley Problem, where
you have the option to pull a lever saving four lives, at the cost of one life. Saving the four lives would
provide the most happiness or ‘utility’, so in the Principle of Utility you would pull the lever. In contrast,
condemning the one person to death by pulling the lever would stop regarding that person as an object
of moral worth, therefore in the Categorical Imperative you would not pull the lever, even though it
means the other four people would die.
Ultimately, I believe that the ethics of the Categorical Imperative are the better way for humans
to live as a general principle, especially pertaining to the idea of setting a precedent for the entire
population. This promotes the idea of treating others the way you want to be treated, and that is a world
I would want to live in. In the case of the Trolley Problem, I think it is more acceptable to be responsible
for death via omission than it is to be responsible via action.
