Kantian'S V. Utilitarian'S

Kantian and Utilitarian theories have been highly debated moral ethical theories for centuries. The Kantian theories central motivation is the concept that it should always be possible for an individual to do the right thing as long as it is within an individual’s own power to accomplish this. On the other hand, the Utilitarian theory focuses the determination of right and wrong merely on the results/consequences of choosing an action over other possible actions. These two theories are quite the polar opposites of each other, however, in light of these differences we will approach each of the theories as it would pertain to the downloading of music from a website. There are many types of file sharing websites out there, but for this paper we will focus on the website Napster prior to its file sharing demise in 2000.

As previously mentioned, the Kantian theory teaches us that an individual has the ability to choose an action in any situation. According to this theory there are many selfish desires that drive individuals to do the immoral. These desires lead to people being used by others for an individual’s personal gain. Kantians believe in what Immanuel Kant, the founder of this theory, called “pure practical reason”, meaning that true Kantian theory begs us to ask the simple question of “what is the right thing to do?” To determine what the “right thing to do” is a Kantian would use one of the main focuses of Kantian ethics, the principle of universalizability.

This principle teaches that an action, such as in this case – stealing, is morally acceptable if its maxim is universalizable. A maxim is what an individual states they are going to do and why they are going to do it. Through the principle of universalizability a maxim, which is normally viewed as an individual’s purpose, is only universalizable if an individual’s maxim can be achieved in a world where everyone acted on the same maxim. To consider a maxim universalizable, an individual needs to answer three questions, to-wit; (1) what do you intend to do; (2) can they imagine a world where everyone supports what they are going to do; and (3) can the maxim be achieved on a worldly level?

From the standpoint of file sharing, or bootlegging copyrighted material such as music, a Kantian would view this as a violation of an individual’s rights and not universalizable. This is not viewed as immoral due to the possible consequences that can come from this (federal prosecution), but because of the infringement of an individual’s, or group for that matter, dignity. Autonomy is the biggest concern with the Kantian theory. Kantian ethics are designed to protect the autonomy of the individual and group. When an individual lies, manipulates or coerces others into getting something for themselves, then they are breaking autonomy and the moral code of Kantians. Illegal file sharing and downloading of music that you did not pay for off of a website such as Napster would thus be morally wrong for a Kantian.

Utilitarian’s see things from a different perspective. According to John Mill, the pioneer of the Utilitarian Theory, when choosing an action to follow the only thing that matters is happiness and unhappiness. Act consequentialism, one of the main principles under the Utilitarian Theory, evaluates the actions of an individual on a case-by-case scenario. If an action results in producing the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people involved,