Final answer:
The question compares utilitarianism's focus on the greatest happiness and Kantian ethics' adherence to categorical imperatives, facing critique for oversimplifying morality. Both ethical theories have strengths and arguably fail to fully capture the complexity and competing duties involved in moral decision-making.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question at hand concerns whether utilitarianism or Kantian ethics provides the best guidance for moral behavior. Utilitarianism, associated with philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, proposes that an action is morally right if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Kantian ethics, founded by Immanuel Kant, posits that morality is determined by categorical imperatives - universal laws derived from reason and always to be followed, irrespective of the outcome.
Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics both face criticisms for potentially oversimplifying morality. Critics like Sir William David Ross argue that these frameworks reduce moral considerations to single principles, overlooking the complex reality of competing obligations and pluralist perspectives that are more aligned with our common moral experiences. For example, situations where telling a lie could save a life challenge the absoluteness of Kant's rule against lying and call for a nuanced approach that both moral theories may struggle to accommodate.
Thus, the debate between which theory provides better moral guidance is not easily resolved. It often depends on how one interprets and weights the balance between the consequences of actions (as in utilitarianism) and adherence to moral duties (as in Kantian ethics). Each theory has its strengths and areas where it may seem inadequate in explaining the full complexity of moral decision-making.