In Kantian ethics, duty is super important. It helps people decide what is right or wrong. Kant believed that moral actions come from our ability to think clearly and make good choices. He introduced the idea of the "categorical imperative," which means you should only act in a way that you would want everyone else to act as well. So, it’s all about having good intentions and doing your duty, rather than worrying about what might happen because of your actions. In this way of thinking, being moral means doing what’s right just because it’s your duty, not because you want to gain something or see a certain result.

On the flip side, we have utilitarianism, which is mainly about the results of our actions. A well-known thinker, John Stuart Mill, explained this idea. For utilitarians, the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the effects it has. They believe we should try to create as much happiness as possible for the most people. This idea is often summed up in the phrase "the greatest happiness for the greatest number." It means that actions are considered good if they help more people to be happy.

Key Differences:

1. Focus:

   • Kantian Ethics: Looks at duty and our intentions.
   • Utilitarianism: Concentrates on results and consequences.

2. Moral Framework:

   • Kant: The categorical imperative helps guide what our duties are.
   • Mill: Uses a method to figure out how to create the most happiness.

3. Moral Value:

   • Kant: Comes from doing what is right (your duty).
   • Mill: Comes from creating happiness (utility).

So, in Kantian ethics, duty acts like a moral guide based on rational thinking, while utilitarianism judges what is moral based on the real results of our actions. These two philosophies show very different ways of thinking about what is right and wrong.