The task presented to me in this article is to address two situations and determine the ethical parameters according to which a person should act. The two philosophical approaches I will examine situations from Kantian and utilitarian perspectives. Kant deciphers his ethical questions by examining a person's motivation in performing an act regardless of the consequences. A person using the Kantian view believes that the only pure good is pure human reason without consequences. This pure human reason functions without the influence of human emotions and desires. A truly good act as defined by Kant is performed because of an obligation to the categorical imperative. The personal goals and agendas of the individual committing the act must be kept separate and distinct. Utilitarianism makes ethical decisions based on the consequences of the action taken. Unlike the Kantian vision, the motivations are not important, only the consequences. Action is measured by how much happiness or sadness the action creates. The ideal ethical decision is the one that creates more happiness and less sadness. It is almost impossible to have different degrees of freedom since a person would have to experience all the various degrees of freedom to determine which degree of happiness is better than the other. The first situation involves a thief who robbed a millionaire. In this case Kant would examine the thief's motivations. The thief steals for himself, regardless of his situation. Even though his family is poor and in difficulty. The thief is still making progress. The thief's reasons for stealing from the rich man are irrelevant. Stealing is against the universal law that it is wrong to steal from a… medium of paper… it is good. The father dies peacefully and happily, knowing that his death wish will be followed. The girl pleased her father very much by promising to follow his wish. The only downside would be the lingering guilt that she might marry someone outside of her religion, but that's only a possibility. The utilitarian would agree to tell the father that she will promise not to marry a man outside of his religious affiliation. This decision brings maximum pleasure to both sides of the issue and prevents the pain and anguish experienced by his father. This analysis is strong because it fits very well with the utilitarian point of view. The daughter is doing something that will bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. The main flaw in this argument is that the daughter had to be deceptive to her dying father in order to bring that happiness to her father..