This essay contrasts the practical application of moral antirealism and moral realism theories.

1. Surname 1
Student's Name
Lecturer's Name
Course
Date
Differential Application of Utilitarian and Deontological Ethical Theories in Real Life
This essay contrasts the practical application of moral antirealism and moral realism
theories. This essay confines itself to Kant's Deontological theory in moral realism, while Mill's
Utilitarian theory serves as the focal point of moral antirealism. According to Kant's theory, it is
best to follow precise rules to the letter (Johnson and Cureton). The option that most people
would choose, though, is supported by Mill's theory. The discussion applies the ideas in both
maxims to two real-world situations and reveals how differently they approach the application.
After carefully examining both, I concluded that the utilitarian theory was superior to the
deontological theory. Mill's maxim is more suited to many real-world situations in ethical
decision-making. Kant's maxim is more appropriate when reasoning is most appreciated, such as
in emergencies.
Mill's Utilitarian Theory
In Rescue 1, Utilitarian theory would recommend ignoring the outcry of one individual on the
road to save the five threatened by ocean tides. This theory bases the wrongness or rightness of
action on the resulting consequences of each (Driver). In this scenario, if the rescuers stop to
save one person on the road, it would be too late to save the other five from ocean tides resulting
in their deaths. On the other hand, if they head straight to save the five, the one person by the
road would die. The principle of utility classifies right actions as those that would produce

2. Surname 2
happiness and wrong actions as those that will cause unhappiness. From this point of view, if one
person dies and five people survive, society will find the results favorable. However, if five
people die and one person survives, the community will feel a sense of loss. Therefore, in this
case, Mill would recommend that the rescuers stay true to their mission and save the five people
from ocean tides. The death of one person will be unfortunate but unavoidable.
In Rescue II, Mill recommends that the rescuers save the person on the road even though
that would result in the death of the five people needing rescue from ocean tides. In this case,
although the theory would favor saving the five people at the expense of the one person by the
road, Mill would hesitate to allow the rescuers to run over the person on the road to save the five.
In his view, if the rescuers run over the person resulting in his death, the crew will carry the
burden of the negative feelings associated with the incident (Driver). From his point of view, if
they stop to rescue the person on the road, five people will die, one person will survive, and the
crew's morale will be unaffected. However, if they run over the person on the road, they will save
five people, one person will die, and the crew morale will reduce. In this case, saving the person
by the road and maintaining the effectiveness of the rescuers in doing their work is a more
favorable consequence than the latter.
Kant's Deontological Theory
In Rescue I, Kant would recommend that they save the person on the road since they are already
at the scene, even though that would result in the death of five people in the ocean. The
comparative Imperative theory argues for strict adherence to moral norms by all moral agents
despite personal inclinations (Johnson and Cureton). In this case, the rescuers guiding maxim is
rescuing people from impending disasters. From this point of view, Kant's only interest is that the

3. Surname 3
rescuers remain loyal to their call of duty. Since they are in a position to save the man's life, it
would be morally wrong to leave him to die to save others further along the road. In addition,
Kant would argue that no life is worth more than another (Johnson and Cureton). Therefore, the
rescuers can not let one person die because that will enable them to save five people. For him, it
is either they save all of them or do the most that they can. In this case, he will ask the rescuers to
hasten in rescuing the one person and still head to the ocean even though they will arrive late. If
they can rescue an additional person, that would be great; if not, it will be unfortunate but
justifiable.
In Rescue II, Kant will direct the rescuers to stop and help the person stuck on the road
first, even though they will be late in saving the others from ocean tides. In this case, there are
two moral choices that Kant will contemplate. One is the crew's moral duty to save lives; another
is the societal restriction against actively killing another person. From this point of view, the
rescuers must choose between saving the man stuck on the road or running him over to rescue
those at the beach. Here, Kant would disallow the crew from running over the victim. Instead, he
will want them to help him out of his predicament. In addition, Kant will argue that running over
a person who is stuck on the road to save others would amount to using his life as a means to
achieve social good (Johnson and Cureton). For him, while the crew was on duty, they faced a
problem that was equally suitable for them. Therefore, they should stop and do their job
regardless of the consequences.
Limitations
Mill's theory is criticized for its assumption that society derives its happiness from a good to the
aggregate of all persons (Driver). In Rescue I, Mill would assume that society would accept his

4. Surname 4
actions as morally right because although one person died, five were saved. However, it is
debatable whether society would perceive his choice to let the man die, despite being in a
position to help and go to help others further down the road. Although his decision will have
saved the lives of five people, the people will still feel guilty and feel a sense of loss about the
death of one person. Likewise, in Rescue II, Mill again assumes that society will see his actions
as morally right. However, some might see selfishness in his decision. The people would wonder
how one got stuck in the middle of the road. Besides, they will see that his choice to save the
man was not out of concern for him but to save themselves from the guilt of running over him.
This can undervalue the quality of his choice.
Kant's theory is criticized for lacking practical application in real-life scenarios (Johnson
and Cureton). This stems from its overly objective approach to life, yet most people are
emotionally driven. In Rescue I, Frank's logical decision would help the nearest needy person.
However, doing so would result in the death of five other people whom he could help. In such a
case, it would not be easy to justify that decision to the people who most will argue that the lives
of the five ought to have been given preference. Likewise, in Rescue II, although Kant would
choose to help the man stuck on the road, the people might consider that the man was in no real
danger in the first place, and there is no real benefit to the people, but five people would have
died. Kant will have a hard time justifying their deaths.
Conclusion
Of the two ethics discussed, I find the utilitarian approach superior to the Categorical Imperative.
While I agree with the theoretical tenets of Kant's theory, I am skeptical of its application in real-
life situations. Kant's theory relies on more logical reasoning, yet daily interactions influence

5. Surname 5
most life emotionally. As a result, life is hardly seen in black and white. Logical decisions are
rarely acceptable in normal life except in extreme circumstances, as in military actions. On the
other hand, Mill's theory considers people's emotional drives in their decision-making process. It
allows for the democratization of the people's interests. Because of this, its choices are more
acceptable in society and maintain its cohesive state.

6. Surname 6
Works Cited
Driver, Julia. "The History of Utilitarianism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford
University, 22 Sept. 2014,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/#JohStuMil.
Johnson, Robert, and Adam Cureton. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, Stanford University, 21 Jan. 2022,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/.