How do you apply utilitarianism and Kantian ethics to a moral issue, and how do you evaluate and compare them?
Applying and evaluating moral theories: using utilitarianism and Kantian ethics to reason about a moral issue, weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each, and reaching a comparative judgement on which better answers how we should act.
How to apply utilitarianism and Kantian ethics to a moral issue and evaluate them in SQA Higher Philosophy: the strengths and weaknesses of each theory, how they handle hard cases, and a comparative judgement on how we should act.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
The point of studying the theories is to use and assess them. You must be able to apply utilitarianism and Kantian ethics to a moral issue (showing how each decides), evaluate each theory's strengths and weaknesses, and reach a comparative judgement on which gives the better account of how we should act. This is where the longest, highest-tariff questions in Moral Philosophy sit, and they reward evaluation and a defended conclusion over mere description.
Applying the theories
To apply a theory is to run a real moral issue through its decision procedure.
- Utilitarianism. Identify everyone affected, weigh the pleasure and pain of each option (Bentham's calculus), give weight to higher pleasures (Mill), and choose the act, or follow the rule, that maximises happiness for all, counting each equally.
- Kantian ethics. State the maxim, test it by the formula of universal law (could everyone act on it without contradiction?), and check the formula of humanity (does it treat anyone merely as a means?), then decide by duty regardless of the outcome.
The two often disagree, and showing where and why they diverge on a case is the heart of a strong answer.
Evaluating utilitarianism
The single strongest objection is injustice: a theory that could endorse framing or sacrificing an innocent to maximise overall happiness seems to miss something basic about individual rights. Rule utilitarianism softens this, but at the cost of looking less purely consequentialist.
Evaluating Kantian ethics
Kant's strongest appeal is that it protects persons: no one may be sacrificed merely to benefit others, which is exactly where utilitarianism is most vulnerable. Its strongest weakness is the mirror image: by ignoring consequences it can demand outcomes most people find unacceptable.
Comparing the theories and judging
The comparison turns on the criterion of rightness: outcomes (utilitarianism) versus duty and respect for persons (Kant). Each is strongest where the other is weakest: Kant protects the individual that utilitarianism might sacrifice, while utilitarianism attends to the consequences that Kant might ignore. A good judgement is made through a shared case and then defended: you might conclude that Kant better safeguards the individual against being used, while utilitarianism better handles emergencies where outcomes clearly dominate, perhaps favouring a view that combines respect for persons with attention to consequences. The marks reward whichever verdict you argue for with balanced reasons.
Examples in context
Take the classic runaway trolley: divert it to kill one person and save five, or do nothing and let five die. Utilitarianism points towards diverting, since five lives saved outweigh one lost, the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Kantian ethics resists treating the one person merely as a means to save the others, and asks whether the maxim of killing one to save more could be universalised, so it may forbid the diversion. The case crystallises the whole comparison: utilitarianism counts the outcome, Kant protects the individual from being used. A top answer applies both theories explicitly to the case, shows exactly where they part company and why, then judges, for instance that the trolley case favours consequences but the transplant case favours Kant, so neither theory fits every case, which is itself a defensible conclusion.
Try this
Q1. State one strength and one weakness of Kantian ethics. [2 marks]
- Cue. Strength: it protects the individual and their dignity, ruling out using people merely as a means. Weakness: it ignores consequences, so it can demand bad outcomes (truth to the murderer at the door).
Q2. On what does the comparison between utilitarianism and Kantian ethics ultimately turn? [2 marks]
- Cue. On the criterion of rightness: utilitarianism judges by consequences (the greatest happiness), while Kant judges by duty and respect for persons, regardless of outcome.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of SQA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
SQA Higher (P2)8 marksEvaluate utilitarianism as a moral theory.Show worked answer →
Marks reward a balanced evaluation with strengths, weaknesses and a supported judgement, not description. Strengths: utilitarianism is clear, secular and practical; it treats everyone's happiness equally (impartiality); it takes consequences seriously, which matters; and rule utilitarianism can protect justice and rights.
Weaknesses: it can justify injustice (sacrificing an innocent for the greater good); consequences are hard to predict and pleasures hard to measure; it can be too demanding; and it ignores motives and special obligations to family and friends. Then judge: for example, that act utilitarianism is vulnerable to the injustice objection but rule utilitarianism answers it at the cost of looking less consequentialist, so the theory is appealing but incomplete. A strong answer weighs the strongest objection against the strongest defence before deciding.
SQA Higher (P2)10 marksCompare utilitarianism and Kantian ethics and judge which gives the better account of how we should act.Show worked answer →
The marks reward a genuine comparison across both theories with strengths, weaknesses and a defended judgement. Set up the contrast on the criterion of rightness: utilitarianism judges by consequences and the greatest happiness; Kant judges by duty, the categorical imperative and respect for persons.
Use a shared case (lying to a murderer at the door, or the transplant surgeon) to show how each decides and where each strains: utilitarianism risks endorsing injustice, Kant risks demanding disastrous outcomes by ignoring consequences. Note strengths: utilitarianism's flexibility and impartiality, Kant's protection of rights and dignity and its account of why using people is wrong. Reach a judgement, for example that Kant better protects the individual against being sacrificed while utilitarianism better fits cases where outcomes clearly matter, perhaps favouring a position that combines respect for persons with attention to consequences. Defend whatever verdict you give.
Related dot points
- The nature of moral decisions: distinguishing moral from non-moral decisions, the key concepts of moral philosophy (right and wrong, good, duty, consequences, intention), and central distinctions such as normative versus descriptive and consequentialist versus non-consequentialist.
How SQA Higher Philosophy frames moral decisions: the difference between moral and non-moral decisions, the key moral concepts (right, wrong, good, duty, consequences, intention), and core distinctions like normative versus descriptive and consequentialist versus non-consequentialist.
- Utilitarianism: the greatest happiness principle, Bentham's act utilitarianism and the hedonic calculus, Mill's development with higher and lower pleasures and rule utilitarianism, and the main objections to a consequentialist ethic.
How utilitarianism judges right and wrong by happiness: Bentham's greatest happiness principle and hedonic calculus, Mill's higher and lower pleasures and rule utilitarianism, and the key objections to this consequentialist theory.
- Kantian deontology: the good will and duty, the distinction between categorical and hypothetical imperatives, the formula of universal law and the formula of humanity (ends in themselves), and the main objections to a duty-based ethic.
How Kant grounds morality in duty and reason: the good will, categorical versus hypothetical imperatives, the formula of universal law and the formula of humanity, and the main objections to this non-consequentialist theory.
- Evaluating arguments: judging the premises for acceptability, judging the premises for relevance to the conclusion, judging whether the premises are sufficient to support the conclusion, and applying the principle of charity when interpreting an argument.
How to evaluate an argument in SQA Higher Philosophy using the criteria of acceptability, relevance and sufficiency, how these criteria connect to validity and soundness, and why the principle of charity matters when interpreting an argument.
- Evaluating rationalism and empiricism: the strengths and weaknesses of Descartes' rationalism and Hume's empiricism, the main objections to each, and a comparative assessment of how well each answers the sceptical problem of knowledge.
How to evaluate Descartes' rationalism and Hume's empiricism in SQA Higher Philosophy: the strengths and weaknesses of each, the key objections (the Cartesian circle, the limits of the copy principle), and a comparative judgement on the problem of knowledge.
- The course assessment: the structure of the externally marked question papers covering Arguments in Action, Knowledge and Doubt and Moral Philosophy, the command words used, and how marks are awarded across short-answer, analysis and extended-response questions.
An overview of how SQA Higher Philosophy is assessed: the externally marked question papers across the three areas of study, the command words (explain, analyse, evaluate), and how marks are awarded across short-answer, analysis and extended-response questions.
Sources & how we know this
- Higher Philosophy Course Specification — SQA (2022)