Compare And Contrast Immanuel Kant And Kant

Human beings constantly ask questions regarding the nature of morality. In this process of prescriptive inquiry, they invoke specific ethical theories to explain the concept of right or wrong. The reason is that morality is concerned with the question of good or bad of an action. When determining the morality of actions, there are two principles of ethical philosophies that must be contrasted. These philosophies are teleological and deontological theories of ethics. While teleological ethics concentrates on the consequences of actions to achieve some sort of end, the deontological theories assert that morality is an obligation thus cannot be reduced due to the creation of desirable outcomes. Given these distinctively opposite traits of the two ethics, it is obvious that the methods of approaching moral theories are differs from each other. Kant and Aristotle developed theories that are contradicting to each other, however, both of them gives us a reason to ask questions and seek answers. This essay will be analyzing main ideas of two philosophers and comparing the theories introduced by them.

Mill states that the “utility or the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in portion as they tend to promote happiness…by happiness is intended pleasure” for “pleasure and freedom are desirable ends” (Mill, 7) He talks more about the utilitarian perspective, that is, we increase the levels of happiness for others. Following this logical equation, when pleasure is achieved it increases the intensity of happiness that was intended for others which constructs man’s dignity as a caring human being. Additionally, we attain the internal pleasure that renders power.

Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human

Since the trial of Roe vs. Wade the topic of abortion has become more commonly discussed among Americans. In addition, as time progresses there are new scientific discoveries that are being used the medical field; for example, prenatal diagnosis, “determining the sex of a fetus by an ultrasound scanning” (Junhong). Furthermore, with these medical advances it has created an issue of selective abortion, “abortions procured solely on account of a fetus's race, sex, or disability” (Berry. This essay discusses the moral judgement of the fetus by considering the case study, the utilitarian reasoning, and the Kantian reasoning when evaluating when it is morally right to use prenatal diagnosis for selective abortions.

Utilitarianism is a theory which implies that “end justifies the means,” through intentions, virtues, or rules that are also ethically important. This theory in normative ethics means that moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Utilitarians believe the purpose of life is to increase pleasure and happiness, and decrease pain and unhappiness in the world. There have been objections against utilitarianism, in which critics believe that it gives the wrong answer to moral questions. J.S. Mills was a utilitarian, who believed we should pursue our happiness, who has been misinterpreted by many critics. Below are some utilitarian objections followed by J.S. Mills response.

For utilitarian philosophers, happiness is the supreme value of life. John Stuart Mill defines Utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and privation of pleasure” (Mill, Utilitarianism). This meaning that utilitarianism is determined by the calculation of happiness, in which actions are deemed to be good if they tend to produce pleasure, a form of happiness. On the contrary, they are evil if they tend to promote pain. Not only does Mill regard to the end product of happiness in actions, but also considers the motives of such actions. In his argument, Mill defends the idea that happiness as the underlying basis of morality, and that people desire nothing but happiness.

John S. Mill describes Utilitarianism, also known as “The greatest happiness principle”, as a philosophical theory of morality.

In chapters two and three of Mill’s Utilitarianism writings he chose to discuss Utilitarianism’s meaning and principles of Utility. As for the definitions of utilitarianism, Mill described it as, “The Greatest Happiness Principle” (Mill 10). Furthermore, utilitarianism seeks to promote the most happiness for the greater good (Mill 10). In accordance to that, actions are considered good actions if they promote happiness (Mill 10). As Mill describes the definition of Utilitarianism, he also discusses the definition of happiness. Mill describes happiness as, “Intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Mill 10). In other words, Mill believes that if someone is performing an

Throughout the previous thirty-eight years ago since the U.S Supreme Court legalized abortion as a medical procedure, the topic of abortion has spurned several heated debates both socially and politically. In such a heightened contemporary context, it would be rather appropriate to consider the moral application of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, one of the greatest minds in the eighteenth centuries, to the enduring morality debate over abortion. Setting the discussion regarding the morality and immorality of abortion within the Kantian ethics framework provides one with a view that transition from the frequently inflammatory pro-choice and anti-abortion discussion points and towards a deep lucid, philosophical argument of such a controversial topic.

Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.

Kant’s theory of deontology and Mill’s theory of utilitarianism provide starkly different approaches to assigning moral value to ethical dilemmas, two modern dilemmas being commercial surrogacy and physician-assisted suicide. This essay will expound upon the process of deciding moral value within each ethical theory and then apply this decision process to the two ethical dilemmas. Arguments will be posited in support or in opposition to the proposed ethical dilemmas according to the ethical theories. The discussion will revolve around the theories as proposed by the specific authors mentioned above in their relevant works.

Mill also states that an existence with the possibility of happiness must be “…to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation (234)”. Utilitarianism not only focuses on the attainment of happiness, but the prevention of pain and unhappiness. (230)

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?’.

Immanuel Kant concerns himself with deontology, and as a deontologist, he believes that the rightness of an action depends in part on things other than the goodness of its consequences, and so, actions should be judged based on an intrinsic moral law that says whether the action is right or wrong – period. Kant introduced the Categorical Imperative which is the central philosophy of his theory of morality, and an understandable approach to this moral law. It is divided into three formulations. The first formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that one should “always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity”; an act is either right or wrong based on its ability to be

John Stuart Mill, in his Utilitarianism, turns morality into a practical problem. His moral theory is designed to help one evaluate his moral principles and senisibilites and be able to ajudicate conflictions in moral conflicts. Mill postulates that actions are right so far as they tend to promote happiness and minimize pain. This theory manifests itself as an impartial promotion of happiness. Morally "right" actions are ones which promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number number of people and reduce pain. Utilitarian moral theories need to be coupled with theories of well-being, so that we can point to what is being maximized through the moral theory's operation. Mill's moral theory is