Compare and contrast Kantianism and Utilitarianism
Over time philosophers have given different ideas about their idea of the good life and how should we attain it, what happiness really constitutes of and how could we be happy in a world full of temptations or aspects that only disregard us from being happy. Kantianism and Utilitarianism are two significant theories that try to answer such questions. They both give their own interpretations about the means of why we’re here.
Although these two are entirely different from each other, to a certain extent they do have some similarities. Kantianism negates the significance of any personal relationships. The Kantian treats others like he would expect them to treat him. The one universal way to act should carry from one to another regardless of your personal relationship to that person. Similarly, Utilitarianism is a relatively straight-forward analysis where the calculation is indefferent to persons and relationships. Using this system to examine what action is appropriate , everyone is on equal footing. But from this point, they both start to differ apart.

Utilitarianism, supported by Bentham and Mill, is based on examining the consequences of any act with the merits of an act being determined by the maxim - the greatest good for the greatness number. Thus, determining whether or not one should tell a lie depends on the consequences. Suppose I’m a doctor who have just examined a patient who did not know yet that he has an incurable terminal illness. If I follow utilitarianism, I will lie about his situation, knowing that the truth will immediately cause more pain. Thus, I would prefer to lie and tell the patient, "Hang in there, you'll recover soon enough." At this point the difference between the two starts getting clear. Kant believed in moral obligations, known as ‘categorical imperatives’. Suppose you borrowed