For centuries, debates over whether morality should focus on the ends or the means have reigned supreme. But which of these frameworks truly captures the essence of ethics — or is the answer something else entirely?

Introduction

We’ve all heard of the famous trolley problem (illustrated in Figure One). First posed by British philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967, the thought experiment is simple: a runaway trolley is headed toward five people tied to the tracks. You can pull a lever to divert it, but in doing so, it will kill one person instead. Do you pull the lever, or do nothing?

This ethical dilemma forces us to question the ethical nature of our decisions. For some background information, there are three main types of ethics: virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and deontology. This post will not analyze virtue ethics, as that topic is worthy of its own post. Instead, this post will focus on the classic utilitarianism versus deontology debate.

Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) is credited as the founder of modern utilitarianism. This view believes that the ends justify the means. It would not be precise to say that he founded or discovered the concept of utilitarianism, but he turned it into a systematic moral philosophy. In his seminal text An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), he states:

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. (An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation)

He takes a naturalist approach to ethics meaning that he looks to nature as a basis for ethics. In nature, beings seek pleasure and avoid pain. An example of this would be an individual accidentally placing one’s hand on a hot stove and quickly moving their hand due to pain. No individual has to think about whether they should remove their hand — it is a natural reaction. Bentham continues to explain that:

Pleasure and pain can flow from four sources: the physical, the political, the moral and, the religious. (An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation)

Bentham distinguishes four kinds of sanctions, or sources of pleasure and pain. The physical sanction refers to the direct sensations of the body, such as the pain of burning your hand on a stove. The political sanction refers to consequences imposed by government, such as fines, imprisonment, or welfare benefits. The moral or popular sanction refers to the social consequences of behavior, including shame, respect, or public approval. Finally, the religious sanction refers to rewards and punishments believed to come from divine authority, such as heaven or hell.

In terms of the trolley problem, it is obvious that Bentham would pull the lever. Pulling the lever would maximize pleasure and minimize pain. There are many arguments as to why this type of ethics should be prioritized above others:

1. Pleasure and pain are intrinsic: As beings embedded in nature, we are governed by pleasure and pain. Every action we take can be measured by its tendency to increase happiness or reduce suffering.
2. Equal value for all lives: No matter who is tied to the track, the morally right action is always the one that preserves the greatest number of lives.
3. Non-arbitrary: Unlike systems based on personal conviction, divine command, or cultural custom, utilitarianism offers a definite aim: the maximization of overall happiness. This clarity avoids arbitrariness and provides a consistent standard for decision-making.
4. Life as a pre-requisite to ethics: Ethical systems presuppose living subjects who can experience and act. A dead individual cannot engage in moral reasoning. Therefore, when faced with a choice, saving more lives ensures that the conditions for ethics itself are preserved.
5. Practical for governance: Governments and institutions must make choices that affect aggregates of people. Since they cannot satisfy everyone, the most rational approach is to maximize benefits for as many people as possible. Utilitarianism provides the most workable framework for this task.

Given these arguments, utilitarianism presents itself as a highly persuasive ethical framework. Yet it is not without its critics. Before turning to the tenets of deontology, it is worth reviewing some of the most common objections raised against utilitarianism.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Here are some common critiques of utilitarianism along with Bentham’s general responses:

• Cannot predict the ends: It is impossible to fully predict the long-term results of an action. For example, you might save someone from dying, only for them to later harm innocent people.

Bentham’s Response: While we cannot foresee every possible outcome, we can reasonably predict the immediate consequences of many actions. Just as letting go of a pencil will cause it to fall, in ethical dilemmas — like the trolley problem — we can still identify and act on the most probable and direct results of our choices.

• No way to measure pleasure (or pain): There is no objective scale to calculate how much pleasure or pain results from an action. Without a clear metric, utilitarianism seems flawed since “utility” cannot be properly quantified.

Bentham’s Response: Although there is no literal gauge of pleasure or pain, humans intuitively recognize what causes them. Pleasure and pain are intrinsic features of nature: falling in love feels good, touching a hot stove does not. Because these responses are universal and observable, we can make reasonable judgments about which actions produce more pleasure than pain. Moreover, since life itself is the precondition for experiencing pleasure, we should prioritize preserving and maximizing lives even when exact measurements are impossible.

• Justifies atrocities: Utilitarianism can be misused to defend injustices. For example, some argue that slavery operated under a utilitarian logic: if a small group performs most of the labor, the larger population can live more comfortably and enjoy greater pleasure.

Bentham’s Response: A genuine utilitarian framework would never justify atrocities like slavery. The immense suffering inflicted on enslaved individuals far outweighs any comfort enjoyed by others. Moreover, if society has the capacity to secure widespread well-being without oppression, then true utility requires eradicating such practices and building a world where no one is subjected to that degree of pain.

• Masochism: Some people deliberately seek out painful experiences. If pain is something humans naturally avoid, then cases like masochism seem to undermine the utilitarian principle.

Bentham’s Response: Masochism does not disprove utilitarianism; it supports it. When individuals choose painful experiences, they do so because the resulting pleasure outweighs the discomfort. Activities such as getting a tattoo, eating spicy foods, or feeling sore after exercise illustrate that the ultimate outcome is still a net increase in pleasure, which aligns with utilitarian reasoning.

Deontology

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) offers a different approach to ethics. He is credited as the founder of deontological ethics, which holds that the means justify the ends. Unlike naturalist thinkers such as Bentham, Kant belongs to the German idealist tradition. He is concerned with the conditions that make experience possible, and therefore grounds ethics not in nature but in the rational structure of the mind itself. If the mind structures how we experience nature, then we must look to the categories of the mind to find out what ethical framework to adhere to.

In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Kant begins by explaining how reason guides the will. His argument is that a moral action must be performed out of duty determined by reason, rather than any other reason. For example, there is a difference between doing a good deed for the sake of doing a good deed, and doing a good deed to get something in return. From here, Kant explicitly discusses the notion of the universal maxim. Essentially, our maxims (the rules we act on) must hold true universally. This is the foundation for his famous categorical imperative: one must act as if their action were applied to everyone. If that results in a contraidction it is unethical. Kant writeS:

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) offers a different approach to ethics. He is credited as the founder of deontological ethics, which holds that the morality of an action depends on the principle behind it, not its consequences. Unlike naturalist thinkers such as Bentham, Kant belongs to the German idealist tradition. He is concerned with the conditions that make experience possible, and therefore grounds ethics not in nature but in the rational structure of the mind itself.

In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Kant begins from the idea that reason guides the will. He argues that a truly moral action must be performed out of duty as determined by reason. For example, doing a good deed in exchange for something in return is not a true moral action. From this foundation, Kant develops the principle that reason requires our maxims (the rules we act on) to hold universally. He famously states:

I ought never to act in such a way that I couldn’t also will that the maxim on which I act should be a universal law. (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals)

Essentially, Kant’s universal maxim (the categorical imperative) holds that an action is immoral if, when universalized, it leads to a contradiction or undermines the very conditions that make the action possible. Here are some examples:

• Running a red light: If everyone were to run red lights, intersections would devolve into chaos. The very concept of a “red light” signaling “stop” would collapse, making the action of “running” it incoherent.
• Theft: If everyone stole from everyone else, the institution of private property would disintegrate. Without property, the very act of “stealing” loses meaning.
• Lying: If everyone lied, trust would be impossible. Communication itself would break down, and the very idea of “lying” would no longer make sense, since truth-telling would cease to exist as a norm.

Thus, Kant writes:

So the universal imperative of duty can be expressed as follows: Act as though the maxim of your action were to become, through your will, a universal law of nature. (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals)

Criticisms of Deontology

• Too Rigid: Kant’s ethics admits no exceptions. If a Nazi knocks at your door and asks if you are hiding Jewish people, Kant would require you to tell the truth. Most people find this morally abhorrent.

Kant’s Response: We must never violate the categorical imperative. My duty is to act only on maxims that could be universal laws. If I tell the truth, I have acted rightly, regardless of how others abuse that truth. The culpability for atrocities lies with those who violate duty, not with the one who obeys it.

• You Can Always Be Specific: One could always formulate a maxim so narrowly that it avoids contradiction. For instance: “Run this specific red light at 1:30 pm in this exact spot.” If everyone tried to do that, it would not generate a contradiction because only one person could occupy that situation.

Kant’s Response: The categorical imperative is not about idiosyncratic situations but about the general principle of an action. The maxim must be universalizable in form, not tailored to a private exception. Otherwise, it is no longer a genuine moral law.

• Conflicting Duties: Two duties can appear to conflict — for example, helping an elderly woman across the street versus stopping to pick up litter. If you cannot do both, then Kant’s framework seems impossible to follow.

Kant’s Response: True duties never conflict. Duties derived from reason fall into two kinds: perfect duties (strict and exceptionless) and imperfect duties (flexible and circumstantial). Helping someone in immediate need is a perfect duty, while picking up litter is an imperfect one. Thus, reason can always determine which duty binds us most strictly, and real contradictions do not exist.

• Leads to Disastrous Outcomes: If only the means matter, then good intentions might lead to catastrophic consequences — for instance, strict adherence to duty could contribute to a nuclear war in which everyone dies.

Kant’s Response: Moral worth depends on whether one acts from duty, not on outcomes. If disaster results, it is because others failed to act morally. Even if humanity were to perish, what matters is that we fulfilled our rational obligation by obeying the categorical imperative.

Conclusion

Ultimately, most ethical debates circle back to these two camps: utilitarianism and deontology. Should we judge an action by its ends, by its means, or by some balance of both? Or perhaps the ancient Greeks had it right all along, focusing not on outcomes or rules but on cultivating virtue through practice and character. In the famous trolley problem, the utilitarian pulls the lever to save the most lives, while the deontologist refuses to directly take an innocent life. The question remains: whose framework truly captures what it means to act morally?