The idea of what it means to be morally good has been heavily debated by philosophers since the times of the ancient Greeks. The idea of moral goodness is described differently across all schools of philosophy. Karol Wojtyla, a modern day Philosopher, placed major emphasis on the philosophical ideas of respecting human rights and the idea that human beings should not merely be used as a means to an end for one’s own personal gain or pleasure. The ideals that Wojtyla prominently emphasized were incomparable with the views of the Utilitarian. Wojtyla saw that “at first sight [Utilitarianism] seems both right and attractive, for it is difficult to imagine that people could act otherwise, that is, that they would want to find more pain than pleasure …show more content…
The basis of Utilitarianism is built on the idea that human beings can use others as a way to allow oneself or the greater good to reach a feeling of absolute pleasure. Which causes Wojtyla to see “Utilitarianism…to be a program of consistent egoism without any possibility of turning into authentic altruism” (Wojtyla, 22). We ultimately act upon using people in a way to produce maximum pleasure without taking into account their basic human rights and free will. Wojtyla is a believer in personalism in which he sees persons as individuals of rational nature, that hold an immense of amount of free will that should not be taken advantage of. This is where Wojtyla sees a problem Utilitarianism because, as human beings, “when someone else treats a person exclusively as a means to an end, then the person is violated in what belongs to his very essence and at the same time constitutes his natural right” (Wojtyla, 10). Our natural right of free will should never be violated yet, when one follows the ideals of Utilitarianism they violate an individual’s natural human right in order to achieve maximum pleasure. The egotistic nature of Utilitarianism, not only comes from using someone as only a means to an end, it also arises from performing actions that will first and foremost benefit you and “if it does not …show more content…
Thus the human being in my own person is not at my disposal, so as to maim, to corrupt or kill him.” (Kant, 42). No individual wants to be used as property for the gains of someone else. Kant’s argument can be tied back to his theory of the Categorical Imperative. If everyone in the universe used people merely as a means and never as an ends, then society would be corrupt. When you solely use a person for your own benefit, you reduce them only to someone you want them to be and all sense of free will and individuality, which is what makes someone human, is completely diminished. Kant would agree that in order to ensure that the person is not being used merely as in end, one must seek a common good or goal with others. Therefore, rather than seeing someone as useful in the sense that it will benefit you only or everyone but them, you treat the other as equal and seek to find common ground where you can freely dedicate yourselves to something you both find commonly morally