Immanuel Kant is called the "father" of deontological ethics, also colloquially called Kantianism, which provides a sophisticated explanation of deontology. His philosophy embodies capitulation to his maxim, which he considers good, however, only if his motivations are unconditional and independent of external reason. The maxim is called the intrinsic duty or obligation of the individual to himself or to others, which, if applied to all, is not in accordance with universal law. John Stuart Mill is a proponent of the utilitarian theory, according to which happiness is the manifestation of pleasure and the absence of pain. These pleasures of which Mill speaks are divided into two forms, bodily and intellectual, which I will discuss later in this essay. This essay will articulate an adequate explanation of deontological and utilitarian theory and explain the position that Kant and Mill would have regarding the question "is it morally permissible to lie?" » I will also give my position regarding which theory should be the most reasonable, as well as which one best answers the question. Immanuel Kant's philosophy begins with the concept of "good will", which he believed to be the only good in itself. Many qualities are attributed to good will (courage, resolution and perseverance), but they are not intrinsically good, because they too can be harmful. However, with the interweaving of good will and these qualities, we can see the manifestation of good in these qualities. Kant asserts that these qualities can be misdirected without the proper skill of good will applied to these qualities, the alignment of the will and...... middle of paper ...... the utilitarian method is that 'she is indifferent to partiality towards her own position. With the tactic of majority rule, it seems that the minority becomes voiceless and can easily be controlled – this philosophy would consider it permissible for slavery to occur. Deontic ethics, on the other hand, attracts more towards duty than towards the good. Deontic ethics differs in that outcomes cannot contravene reason's purpose of respecting one's moral duties. Neither can be used as an end, so slavery would not be allowed. The problem I find with ethics is that it does not seem practical, because in the case of lying; you can't lie even if it was to save people. I believe in the utilitarian method, because even if the majority rules, those who are intellectually aware would find discourse between citizens acceptable, regardless of their social position..