I wanted to approach both Kantianism vs. Utilitarianism for those who are not students of ethics words like utilitarianism and Kantianism may sound little foreign but for those are trying to tackle the world of ethics then these two represent important viewpoints. There are many similarities between utilitarianism and Kantianism but some can confuse some people. However, there are important differences between the two philosophies that I will try to explain.
In Utilitarianism this philosophy believes that consequences of action are responsible for people judging that action as morally right or wrong. Thus, a believer of utilitarianism would say that the outcomes of the actions that is deemed morally right would be good. The theory says that people choose actions that help in maximizing happiness and at the same time remove misery, pain and agony. The worth of any human action depends upon its utility or value. Now with the view on Kantianism was put forward by Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher he focused on the duty he believed his philosophy take the position that the morality of an action is dependent upon whether the individual has adhered to the rules or not. Here are some points or highlights why Kantianism vs. utilitarianism. * Attitude towards what is right or wrong is what constitutes the basic difference between utilitarianism and Kantianism. * Utilitarianism says that an act is justified if maximum numbers of people are deriving happiness out of it. This simply means that end justifies means. And that act is justified if the end is happiness for all.
On the other hand, Kantianism says that the end does not justify means. Whatever we do inside our obligations is morally good. * Lying is universally wrong and thus is wrong in Kantianism too. However, under Utilitarianism, lying is OK if it brings pleasure and happiness to most of people. * Modern democracies are all about utilitarianism as they aim to bring the greatest amount of happiness to greatest number of people. Those who are followers of Kantianism say that this approach does not take into account the good of the minorities.
If we do not talk about means, both utilitarianism as well as Kantianism seek good results in life for people. Another side to ethics which is different from Kant's view is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is about promoting happiness and pleasure with having the absence of pain. The main goals for utilitarianism is for pleasure and the freedom from pain. These are the only things desirable as goals because any other thing that may be desirable is because it is pleasurable and does not have any pain. This also says not only to think of your own happiness but to think of others happiness as well. Also to think about your actions and weigh out all the consequences and how others will be affected by it. By promoting happiness for many people and sacrificing your own happiness is when are actions are considered morally good such as in donating money to charity instead of keeping it for yourself. Another side to ethics which is different from Kant's view is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is about promoting happiness and pleasure with having the absence of pain. The main goals for utilitarianism is for pleasure and the freedom from pain. These are the only things desirable as goals because any other thing that may be desirable is because it is pleasurable and does not have any pain. This also says not only to think of your own happiness but to think of others happiness as well. Also to think about your actions and weigh out all the consequences and how others will be affected by it. By promoting happiness for many people and sacrificing your own happiness is when are actions are considered morally good such as in donating money to charity instead of keeping it for yourself.

I think the most plausible theory is Utilitarianism because it more realistic to what I think most people will follow. If you are working to promoting happiness but not hurting others along the way and acting in such a way like donating to charity which can make many people happy besides yourself you are considered a good person. I disagree mostly with Kant's view about lying because while it is a bad thing most of the time it can be a good thing in order to protect someone physically or emotionally and this way you are promoting more happiness rather than taking it away from them.

All acts that promote happiness are morally good.
All acts that are self-sacrificing promote happiness
Therefore all acts of self-sacrificing are morally good.

Now with the Second part of this essay will be on the topic of abortion I wanted to do something I felt comfortable about abortion was actually my second choices I wanted to do euthanasia or on physician-assisted suicide but I felt I would be one sided on this debate.
Here are few points or pro sided of this issue. Every child born should come into the world wanted, loved, and cared for. Planned children often have better life prospects because caregivers are better prepared to support the child physically, emotionally, and financially. The fetus is not yet a human being because it cannot survive outside the uterus on its own. Abortion should not be considered murder if the fetus is not self-sustaining and requires the mother’s body and physical resources to survive. The body of first priority is therefore the mother’s, and it should be her choice as to what she endures both mentally and physically the fetus is not yet a human being because it cannot survive outside the uterus on its own. Abortion should not be considered murder if the fetus is not self-sustaining and requires the mother’s body and physical resources to survive. The body of first priority is therefore the mother’s, and it should be her choice as to what she endures both mentally and physically. In cases of rape or incest, the resulting baby could be a constant reminder to the woman of the trauma she experienced. Research also suggests that the babies of such cases face a higher risk of neglect or abuse from their mothers for various reasons. And many foster homes and orphanages are beyond capacity; putting a child into the foster care system would weigh even heavier on already-scarce resources. And finally abortion is overall a very safe procedure. Less than 1% of abortions performed before 21 weeks of pregnancy result in major complications such as heavy bleeding or infection. If abortion is made illegal, surely many women will continue to seek them in secrecy and likely sacrifice sanitary conditions and professional care; illegitimate abortions have caused thousands of women to die throughout history all over the world. This view point would be my strongest part of the topic now with the con side of this topic the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception; this means abortion is murder, which is immoral and should be illegal.
If the pregnancy is the result of carelessness on the mother’s part (i.e., she did not take the proper precautionary measures to effectively prevent an unintended pregnancy), she should have to deal with the consequences. It is ultimately her responsibility (as the partner who can become pregnant) to prevent pregnancy if both she and her male partner do not wish to conceive. If abortions are unconditionally accepted by society and easily obtainable, people will use them as a regular form of birth control. Many religions do not endorse abortion or certain form of birth control this is because such religions may believe that sexual intercourse is for procreation purposes only or because any children conceived within a marriage are children of God. All babies have great potential; a woman could possibly abort a fetus that could have grown up to be of great importance to society or the world at large. Many religions do not endorse abortion or certain form of birth control this is because such religions may believe that sexual intercourse is for procreation purposes only or because any children conceived within a marriage are children of God. All babies have great potential; a woman could possibly abort a fetus that could have grown up to be of great importance to society or the world at large. Terminating a child of God is a moral sin. In end it is really comes down to you on whether or not you want to have this child or not. Don’t let society choice for you.

Sources for this paper that was used where
Moral choices, An Introduction into ethics, by Scott B Rae, issues 2009
Kantians Ethics by Allen W, Woods issued 2007 Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn issued 2013
Sources for my abortions topic where
. LeVay, Simon, Janice Baldwin, and John Baldwin. Discovering Human Sexuality. Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2009
Rand Paul, MD, US Senator (R-KY), stated in his article titled "Sanctity of Life," posted on his official US Senate website (accessed Apr. 30, 2014):
Louise Melling, JD, Director of the Center for Liberty at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), wrote in her Jan. 22, 2009 article, "Common Hopes," published by the Daily Kos