Moral Judgement (Kant Utilitarian.) First of all I want to state the Kantian and the Utilitarian views butt heads on this issue. The Kantian view is nonconsequential, that is as a matter of principle with the consequences be damned. The Utilitarian view is consequential with the results given as much consideration as possible. I will attempt to explain what I mean through some examples. Some school systems hand out condoms free of charge to their students. The Utilitarian view would be that this is a good thing. They would state that by doing so they are stopping unwanted pregnancies that in turn could cost society. This program would help stop the spreading of diseases such as HIV, AIDS and syphilis. This also would lesson the burden on society. Kantian view would not be in favor of this program because it is considering the outcome of what might happen if the program were not in place. They might feel it is the parent's decision to make because it is their job to act in good will of their family and not the school system's. Another topic under much debate would be assisted suicide. The Kantian view is totally opposed to this. It is just wrong to kill someone. One cannot kill another person out of good will. If you were to apply this to the Universal Law it would not hold true and there for it is wrong. On the other hand, the Utilitarian view would be open to this concept. How could we allow one to suffer knowing they are going to die in the end anyway? Would it be wrong to stop the suffering? How can one seek the greatest amount of happiness if they are suffering and are basically condemned to die? By assisting this individual we are also helping out his family by limiting their grief. We are also helping out society by freeing up a bed in the hospital for those individuals that could be healed and go on to lead a happy life. It could also save money if the person does not have insurance. The last example I want to use is t...