Ethics and religion: Bentham and Kant — AQA A-Level Religious Studies
Ethics and religion: Bentham and Kant explained
Ethics and religion: Bentham and Kant covers 2 specification points, including Comparison of the key ideas of Bentham and… and How far these two ethical theories are….
Read the full explanation
Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
Comparison of the key ideas of Bentham and Kant about moral decision making.
This topic asks you to compare how Bentham and Kant think moral decisions should be made. Bentham's utilitarianism judges an act by its consequences: the right act is the one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number, weighing pleasures and pains. Kant's deontology judges an act by the principle behind it: act only on maxims you could will as universal law, and treat persons as ends, never merely as means. Compare them on what makes an act right (outcome versus intention and duty), on the role of consequences, and on how each treats individuals. A concrete case helps: telling a lie. Bentham may permit a lie if it maximises overall happiness; Kant holds that lying cannot be universalised and so is always wrong. Assess which approach gives better moral guidance, noting strengths and weaknesses of each, and reach a reasoned judgement.
How far these two ethical theories are consistent with religious moral decision making.
This essay asks you to weigh Bentham's Act Utilitarianism and Kant's deontological ethics against the practice of religious moral decision making. Take each theory in turn. For Bentham, explain the hedonic calculus: it measures pleasure and pain by intensity, duration, certainty, proximity, fecundity, purity and extent, and it treats every person's happiness as counting equally. That sits awkwardly with a religious ethic that reserves moral authority for God or scripture, yet it can align with a command to love the neighbour and seek the common good. For Kant, explain the categorical imperative, including the formula of universal law and the formula of humanity, and the role of duty and good will rather than consequences. Kant's rational autonomy can clash with obedience to revealed law, yet his insistence on treating persons as ends resonates with religious teaching on human dignity.
Your focus
- Explain Bentham's and Kant's key ideas about moral decision making.
- Compare the two approaches using a shared concrete example.
- Assess the strengths and weaknesses of each and reach a reasoned judgement.
Show all 6 objectives
- Explain the central features of Bentham's Act Utilitarianism and Kant's deontological ethics.
- Compare each theory with religious approaches to moral decision making.
- Evaluate how far each theory is consistent with religious ethics and justify a conclusion.
Ethics and religion: Bentham and Kant exam tips
Marking Points
- Explains Bentham's consequentialist approach, judging acts by the greatest happiness produced for the greatest number.
- Explains Kant's deontological approach, judging acts by universalisable maxims and by treating persons as ends, never merely as means.
- Compares the two on what makes an act right, contrasting outcome with intention and duty.
- Applies both to a concrete case such as lying, showing how each reaches a different verdict.
- Assesses the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and reaches a reasoned judgement on which gives better moral guidance.
- Explains Bentham's hedonic calculus and its seven measurable dimensions as the basis for judging an action's rightness.
- Explains Kant's categorical imperative, including universalisability and treating persons as ends, as a duty-based test.
- Compares each theory with a religious source of moral authority, such as divine command or scriptural law, and identifies where they agree or conflict.
- Reaches a sustained judgement on how far, and in which respects, each theory is consistent with religious moral decision making.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Use comparison connectives such as 'whereas' and 'by contrast' to keep the comparison explicit.
- 💡Anchor each theory to one shared example so the contrast is concrete.
- 💡Reserve space for an evaluative judgement rather than ending on description.
- 💡Define each theory's core test in a sentence before applying it to a religious context.
- 💡Use a concrete example, such as a medical or honesty dilemma, to show how each theory would guide a decision.
- 💡Signal your judgement clearly and return to the 'how far' wording in your conclusion.
Common Mistakes
- Describes Bentham and Kant separately without comparing them; draw explicit points of contrast on consequences, intention and duty.
- Attributes a consequence-based test to Kant; keep Kant's focus on universalisable maxims and treating persons as ends.
- Applies only one theory to the worked example; show how both Bentham and Kant would judge the same case.
- Confuses Bentham's Act Utilitarianism with rule-based or preference utilitarianism; keep the focus on the hedonic calculus applied case by case.
- Treats Kant as a consequentialist who weighs outcomes; stress that duty and the good will, not results, determine moral worth.
- Asserts a single verdict without weighing both theories; compare each against religious decision making before concluding.