In the Critique of Practical Reason (2012), the philosopher considers the categorical imperative as an “act in such a way that the maxim of your will can always simultaneously hold as a principle of a universal legislation.” Another formulation can be found in his work titled The Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (2011): “You use humanity, whether in your own persona or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” Kant believed that the categorical imperative is an obligatory law. All people should follow it regardless of their nationality, wealth, etc. Universality and strict adherence were the two main characteristics of the categorical imperative. Compliance with the categorical imperative is the highest human duty. Despite the humanistic nature of this idea, it might be dangerous, because in some cases, blind adherence to this principle can lead to tragic consequences. In this regard, I am a supporter of consequentialism in the form of the theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is based on the “the claim that an act is morally right if and only if that act maximizes the good” (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2011). In other words, attention is paid to the consequences of human actions to a large number of people. I believe that utilitarianism can be used both in social processes, and in business and professional environment.
The theory of utilitarianism received its main development in John Stuart Mill’s ideas. Mill considered morality in its connection with the human’s ultimate goal, aimed at satisfying all human desires (Wilson, 2007). Happiness presented in a form of benefit was seen by Mill as a long-term pleasure. However, utilitarianism protested against the theory of egoism, based on the idea that people should strive to meet only their personal desires. The admissibility of pleasure or benefit is determined by their level of