Teleological ethics, which focuses on the end results of an action, can be criticized because it fails

Morality is closely connected to desire/pleasure Morality is based on reason

Criticisms of utilitarianism are that: it is too time consuming, and that rules of thumb such as: keeping promises and telling the truth can be revised. Other criticisms are that it can?t predict consequences. It is not a problem or theory, but a problem of life, since we cannot predict life. The criticism that I find most on target is the injustice problem, which questions if act utilitarianism permits unjust actions. For example, according to act utilitarianism would opt for the killing of one man to save the lives of ten other men. Essentially what act utilitarianism is saying, is that killing an innocent man is moral, if the act itself maximizes the best amount of pleasure/good. There is a clear moral issue that can be questioned here.

According to Kantian ethics there is an importance of good will and good intentions. Kant thinks that there is a difference between actions in accordance with duty and actions for the sake of duty. Actions that are in accordance with duty carry self- interest and inclination, which Kant opposes. Kant is trying to cancel out these emotions (desires, and inclinations), because he believes that emotions cannot be trusted and can get us into trouble. For Kant reason is different, because it is solid and unchanging. According to Kant, his role of reason is to begin with pure reason, that tells us what is right and dutiful, and we should desire what are duty is. In opposition, Kant opponents begin with desires/inclinations, and what pleases us. Kant?s opponents claim that reason?s job is to help attain your desires in the most efficient way.

Morality is an empirical matter (what we have learned by experience) Morality is not empirical, it is rational

Some topics in this essay:
According Kant, Kant Principle, Immanuel Kant, Stuart Mill, Stuart Mills, Kants Theory, Kant Mill, According Kantian, categorical imperative, Burruel Phil, consequences matter, act utilitarianism, universal law, categorical imperative test, pass categorical, difference kant, teleological ethics, sense experience, according kant, pass categorical imperative, imperative test, John Stuart, imperative universal law, categorical imperative universal, actions accordance duty,