Utilitarianism and the Kantian theory are both ethical theories that try to prove where the moral worth of an action lies. However these theories differ in a number of ways. Utilitarianism is a theory that “considers the pursuit of higher, distinctively human pleasures.” (Mill 115) With utilitarianism, morality is based on outcomes. An action is right if it results in the greatest good for the most number of people. Kant says you do good because you have a duty to do good; the consequences are completely irrelevant. “A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects.” (Kant 141) With Kantian morality one's intentions and good will is all that matters. The debate between Kant and Mill is precisely whether our sense of duty can be compromised by appeals to consequences. Utilitarianism and Kant’s theory both have similarities, strengths and weaknesses. An instrumental good is something that helps you achieve something else. If there are only instrumental goods, then A is good because it helps bring the outcome of B, which is good because it helps bring the outcome of C, and so on, therefore our notion of goodness has no anchor. To some people this seems irrational, and they think goodness must have an anchor, they want to posit an "intrinsic" good somewhere. Both utilitarians and Kantians agree there is an intrinsic good. They also agree in being monists rather than pluralists about goodness. There is one and only one intrinsic good for both of them. If asked what is that good? Utilitarians would say pleasure. Kantians say a good will.“Kants theory has less scope than utilitarianism. Katians do not claim to discover whether acts whose maxims they do not know fully just.”(O’Neill 169)

Both theories have strengths. Utilitarianism is a consequential theory, they believe that good consequences are what makes an act good, basing its