A Naturalistic Moral Theory Mill 's Utilitarism

1301 Words Oct 26th, 2016 6 Pages
In this paper, I shall argue that while a naturalistic moral theory Mill’s Utilitarism is a flexible and sensitive to circumstances (act and rule) as long as overall happiness is the end goal and promotes social harmony, that his position is a lacks of autonomy/integrity of the moral agent, is a negative responsibility because utilitarianism is an excessively demanding theory, act utilitarianism may require us to commit morally reprehensible acts, there is sometimes conflict of rules for the rule utilitarian, and Kant’s categorical imperative does a much better job of accounting for moral goodness. I believe Kant’s view is more desirable for because it gives you the ability to choose your moral projects, it is rational, consistent, and impartial, it is a moral framework for rights, and lastly it has non-relativistic rights and duties.
One of the many reasons why I prefer Kant’s categorical imperative is it gives you the ability to choose your moral projects unlike Mill’s Utilitarism which takes moral responsibility out of the realm of personal autonomy. According to Kant’s view it is a duty to pursue your happiness through the use of reason which gives us the ability to choose our moral projects, as long as you’re not lying, breaking your promises, or committing suicide (or any other duty as determined by the categorical imperative formulations). Kant’s view emphasizes the importance of rationality, consistency, impartiality, and respect for persons in the way we live our…
Open Document