If life were one big dartboard, with happiness the bulls-eye, then morality would be the feathers on the dart that we shoot.

This analogy, if it were known in the 1700’s and 1800’s, would not only have spared Bentham and Mill a lot of time, but spared the world a lot of trees.For them, happiness in life is only a dart throw away…..Hit the bulls-eye, you win.

….

Let’s play again….

. “But enough of metaphor and declamation: it is not by such means that moral science is to be improved.” (Bentham p.527)Teleology, simple as it may be, is not quite as simple as merely aiming for happiness and hoping for the best.Deontology is even less simple, with the motives behind the action bearing greater importance than the action itself.

Striving for happiness and being a morally praiseworthy person at the same time is a continuous game of give and take, with the outcome entirely dependent on which viewpoint (Kantian, Utilitarian) is held.Together, we will explore these principles eve! Kantianism and Utilitarianism differ greatly in their approach to individual actions and their respective outcomes.Here, we will look at two separate viewpoints, the Teleological approach and the Deontological approach.In Deontology, one derives morality purely by focusing one’s actions on duty alone.Kant is a firm believer in this approach.

According to Kant, an action cannot be morally praiseworthy if: the action opposes duty in any way, one does not fully respect the duty in itself, and, if the action is derived from inclination.Only by fully embracing duty, can one consider their motives for action morally respectable.This inevitably leads one to ask where duty is derived from.”Duty is the necessity of an action executed from respect for law.” (Kant pg.

321)Duty is determined by the principle of the Categorical Imperative.This principle (law, religion, etc.) is to be followed and exercised independent of experience as it is known to …