According To Mill Conscience Summary

Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different

Utilitarianism’s believe in that only the outcomes matter when it comes to decisions and morality, however, those outcomes can also be questioned. Mill forms the framework of utilitarianism by discussing it in a way that makes assumptions; these objections can also be questioned against also.

Hook. Both John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer approach moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree on the importance of selflessness, the idea that we can end human suffering, and the significance of consequences. However, their views conflict concerning the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism since Singer accurately recognizes the discrepancy between a life of absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also wrestles with the intricate concept of motive.

Mill’s harm principle of ““One should not interfere with other people’s lives unless those people are doing harm to others” (p.G3), is in other words, if a person do not cause harm to others, there is no reason to prevent his/her actions. Mill’s belives that an individual is the supreme sovereign of his/her own acts. Even when the decisions taken may be some harm upon him/her, the responsibility of these actions is only on the individual.

In this paper I am going to attempt to answer a question utilizing a little help from one of two philosophers. First of all the question I will be answering is “Should the moral value of an action be determined by the intentions/character that inspire the action, or the consequences that result from the action?” Second, the philosophers I am going to discuss throughout this paper are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Now before I tell you my answer to this question I am going to explain these who these two philosophers are and what their viewpoints on ethics are.

Since ancient times people have been questioning the morality of their decisions. Many turned to religion to guide their actions, while some fortunate few could spend the time to decide for themselves. Reality has a way of clouding judgment, but having a clear understanding of what is and isn't moral acts as a lodestone on the path to making moral decisions. The principals of morality have not changed much in the span of recorded history, so understanding the thoughts of those fortunate thinkers before us is an important catalyst to developing a strong moral code of our own. But, there have been thousands of such thinkers in the past, so it becomes prudent to limit the scope of our evaluation. Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two very important ethical philosophers in western thought who hold contrasting but similarly influential opinions on what constitutes a moral action. To summarize the question: Between Kant's Deontological ethics and Mill's Utilitarianism, which is the best approach to making moral decisions?

In his second essay of the Geneaology of Morals, Nietzsche attempts to identify and explain the origin of the conscience. He does not adopt the view of the conscience that is accepted by the “English Psychologists”, such as Bentham, J. Mill, J.S. Mill and Hume, as the result of an innate moral feeling. Rather, it is his belief that the moral content of our conscience is formed during childhood under the influence of society. Nietzsche defines the conscience as an introspective phenomenon brought about by a feeling of responsibility, in which one analyzes their own morality due to the internalization of the values of society. This definition holds the position that the conscience is not something innate to

Explain in your own words the logic of Mill’s argument, and critically discuss whether happiness should be the criterion of morality.

Conscience, in modern usage, term denoting various factors in moral experience. Thus, the recognition and acceptance of a principle of conduct as binding is called conscience. In theology and ethics, the term refers to the inner sense of right and wrong in moral choices, as well as to the satisfaction that follows action regarded as right and the dissatisfaction and remorse resulting from conduct that is considered wrong. In earlier ethical theories, conscience was regarded as a separate faculty of the mind having moral jurisdiction, either absolute or as a representative of God in the human soul.

Before Mill could analyse the concepts of Utilitarianism his first action was to break down any barriers that caused people to turn away from its insights. All actions exist as a means to promote a particular end; thus an action may only be deemed right or wrong based on the desired outcome of said action. If the sought out ends cause suffering towards others, the actions will be considered to have been bad; just the same as if an end causes happiness, the actions that caused this result will be deemed as good. Therefore, having a standard as to how humans can be judged between good and bad is necessary. Mill argues that “particular truth precedes general theory” (p. 2), unlike the rules of applicable sciences we know of, ethics demands ‘general laws’ in order for

The aim of this paper is to clearly depict how John Stuart Mill’s belief to do good for all is more appropriate for our society than Immanuel Kant’s principle that it is better to do what's morally just. I will explain why Mill’s theory served as a better guide to moral behavior and differentiate between the rights and responsibilities of human beings to themselves and society.

I will be explaining John Stuart Mill’s view on ethics. This includes explaining the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, happiness, unhappiness, quality of pleasure, lying, and the relevance of time with his view. I will then explain how I agree with the principle of Rule Utilitarianism. I will also consider the objection of conflicting rules in Rule Utilitarianism as well as that of negative responsibility, giving my response to each.

David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist, is well known for his radical views on philosophy in his book An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. The book’s main focus is how moral sense and reason contribute to our moral judgments. Moral sense is discussed as the ultimate distinction between vice and virtue. On the other hand, reason is discussed as what is useful, why it is useful, and how it is useful. Hume vaguely discusses moral judges and their lists of virtues. Hume then goes into great detail about artificial and natural virtues. Finally, he discusses reason and that this does not cause our actions but instead a combination of utility and sentiment do.

In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.

In the selection of Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, he starts chapter 3 addressing the argument that a moral philosophy is only valid if it has built-in punishments or sanctions for people that violate its rules. The sanctions imposed by a moral philosophy full under two categories: external and internal. External sanctions, according to Mill, are “the hope of favor and the fear of displeasure from our fellow creatures or from [God]”. A more modern idea of external sanctions could include societal laws or company policies that we adhere to in order to avoid imprisonment, fines, or loss of employment. Mill states that a utilitarian philosophy can incur these extraneous motives as well as any other moral philosophy. Internal sanctions, which Mill believes are more powerful, are most succinctly described as a persons’ conscience; a more wordy description by Mill