When it comes to the topics of (rule) Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, they both have different views to what they believe about lives being of equal moral value. The two also have different views of what moral considerability is, which means the certain traits that give you your personhood. When those ideas are then out in to action, they will yield two different results, such as the case when one looks at abortion. In general, people who follow Kantian ethics are more concerned and centered on the fact that if a person a living, breathing being, they are of moral value, not giving as much concern to the quality of life that the person has. When you look at these two general ideas of the different types of ethics, Kantian Ethics seems to be the much more sound and moral view. It is inclined to look at the fact that the person is a person and can contribute to society in some fashion. Even though utilitarianism claim to be more concerned with the welfare of the members of a society, it really just takes the value and importance out of human beings.
When talking about Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, one of the things that separates the two views is the way in which they differentiate between moral considerablility. In the case of Utilitarianism ethics they define moral considerability as any being which is sentient. This means that the being must be able to experience sensation or feeling. This is especially important for them when looking at the issue of abortion. The Utilitarianism view of abortion varies depending on how conservative or liberal the views are but in general some types of abortion are allowed under the Utilitarianism idea of thinking. Utilitarianism is more lenient on the abortion issue because they don't feel that when a baby is born they are immediately sentient. It is felt that this is something that is gained through time. This idea is incredibly irrational and immoral. According to this id