Comparing Kant And Mill's Theories

Kant’s approach to morality does not seem to be as supportive as Mill’s. He begins his morality theory by the concept of good will. Here he explains how good will can be “good without qualifications.” (Kant 393) He continues to explain that will is good in it, not only because of the effects it has, but also because of the quality. The quality of will is what determines if an action is a moral one or not. Following this, Kant indicates that commands and imperatives are the two important factors that help the will. The imperatives are set into two different types, which are categorical and hypothetical. Between these two, he personally thinks that only categorical imperatives can be part of the laws of morality. He explains that the reason why is because categorical imperatives are what start up the self-will, hypothetical imperatives don’t. They depend highly on the

Ethics refers to what people consider good or bad and right or wrong. It is a theory dealing with values that relate to human behaviour; with respect to their actions and purpose. The two most important philosophers that deal with ethics are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Kant’s ethical theory is Kantianism or deontological ethics. Mill’s ethical theory is utilitarianism. Both philosophers’ theories have many differences; Kant’s theory deals with conduct, seeking reason for good action in duty. Mill’s theory deals with consequences and maximizing human happiness. However both Kant and Mill’s ethics relate to the important biblical principal of the Golden Rule.

Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are philosophers who addressed the issues of morality in terms of how moral customs are formed. Immanuel Kant presented one perspective in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals that is founded on his belief that the worth of man is inherent in his skill to reason. John Stuart Mill holds

Kant is concerned with the means and universalizes the situation, so that the decision-maker understands whether or not the decision is good for everyone. Mill is focused on the ends, pleasure, and pain, which allows for the greater good to feel the most happiness. I argue that Kant’s philosophy is the most rational because it displays a realistic view on what decision-making is. He makes us universalize the issue and put ourselves in that perspective, so that we can fully understand the grasp of the situation, such as that of Maria’s. According to Kant, duty is behavior, we must do it and it is universal so any person can reason it, which allows people to better

This theory is based on Immanuel Kant’s view that the only innately good thing is a good deed and as an action can only be considered good if it is being done morally but he goes on to suggests that the consequences of the good act are impartial and therefore are irrelevant in a debate about morality. The moral act maintains its

Virtues are gained through nurture, and backing his thought, he explained that if we are born virtuously then we could not become bad. Yet, there are a number of bad people in the world. Aristotle saw that virtue and duty had a strong connection. This is because duty is an act in accordance with law, which enforces perfections. Since laws keep us in line, and our duty is to follow these laws, virtues come if you commit your duty. It is a cycle that repeats itself in the positive and the negative depending how we act. Because Aristotle was a Christian, he saw God as everlasting, and overall, see’s god as an important figure to live up to. Aristotle laid the framework to what would be the future of ethics. Although what he had reported would be found eventually, his views are what most believed as the golden rule, and future philosophers would just string off his ideas.

Despite of the differences between the ethical theories of Aristotle and Mill, there are so e similarities between these ethical theories. Both theories hold that happiness is the ultimate desire for individuals. There are differences between the definitions of happiness in the two theories, but they both see happiness as the end sought by individuals. Apart from having happiness as the ultimate goal, the two theories define what is good and what is bad. They are events that can lead an individual towards or away from their ultimate goal of happiness.

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

Immanuel Kants theory differs from John Stewart Mills theory because in Mills theory he explains that people should always act and make a decision for the good of the majority of the people, but cant favors the intentions of the action the good will the follows the action. So if the choice that was made with Kants intentions were justifiable but wasnt exactly the happiest for the majority it will be okay but Mill wouldn’t agree because it didn’t have the happiest outcome. Mill emphasis the consequences of actions when Kants favors them the most. Mill mainly looks at the happiest of the choices where Kant looks at the options in a more logical way. Kant focuses his theory on two principles personal fundamentals and theoretical reasoning. In

Mill explains that people should put their happiness aside for others. From the value theory to the theory of right action, both take apart that creates utilitarianism. Value theory consists of a person’s own actions and moral happiness. Such as his or her own happiness is more valuable than anyone else. If I had the option to choose the restaurant to eat for dinner tonight with my family, I would choose Chinese food even though the rest of my family hates Chinese food. The right way for this action is to choose the restaurant that everyone would be happy with, even though you would be less happy and not satisfied. That is when the theory of right action comes to play. You would choose the option that will be the greater good at the end.

John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher, politician and economist. His work is called Utilitarianism which stands for the greatest happiness principles. Utilitarianism is both a psychological and a moral theory. Mills talks about the happiness that people desire and what people should do. Furthermore, Mill answers the objection by states: “Any moral theory that admits we can be torn between competing considerations is going to be open to misuse”. People cannot calculate the impact of their action. We cannot tell of the future. Human beings does not have control of their future. There is no code that warns in advance for things to be done in the right way. He also states that calculating is hard, people cannot just calculate everything that

A discussion of what makes an action moral can not be had without thoroughly examining the theories of Immanual Kant and John Stuart Mill. Mill bеliеvеd that an action 's consеquеncеs dеtеrminе its moral worth, whilе Kant arguеd that morality of thе action dеpеnds on thе good will. Basеd on thе two contradicting thеoriеs abovе, this papеr will support Mill 's viеw of thе moral worth of an action bеcausе it is dеtеrminеd by its practical and usеful consеquеncеs in our sociеty. Kant’s dismissal of an action 's consеquеncеs is irrеlеvant to our sociеty 's moral valuеs. Thе aim of this papеr is to clеarly show how Mill’s bеliеf to do good for all is morе appropriatе for our sociеty than Kant’s principlе that it is bеttеr to just do what 's morally right. Both Kant’s and Mill’s theories will be examined in order to еxplain why J.S. Mill offеrs a bеttеr guidе to moral bеhavior whilе dеscribing thе diffеrеncеs hе distinguishеd bеtwееn rights and rеsponsibilitiеs of human bеings to thеmsеlvеs and sociеty.

In regards to morality, Mill anchors its definition on the premises of the greatest happiness principle stated above. Unlike Aristotle who puts emphasis on the agent (the person themselves) in regards to acting morally, Mill is very indifferent and states that the character of the person and their motives do not matter only the consequence of those actions matter. For Mill, the morality of the action only depends on whether that action will produce pleasure for greatest number of people. As state before, he explains that pleasure leads to happiness, and happiness is the ultimate goal of each individual. However, morality is “the rules and precepts for human conduct,” and not simply the causes of human behavior. Desire may drive human actions, but that doesn’t mean that desire should propel human actions. Morality is the ideal, not the reality.

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is better known for his Categorical Imperative Theory in which he bases the standard of rationality on fundamental moral principle. Mill’s on the other hand focuses on the Greatest Happiness Principle or the principle of utility. With regards to similarities between them Kant and Mills seem to have universal morality rules where Kant (duties) address one’s own will to be a universal law of nature and Mills (subordinate principles) acknowledging the same actions for all humans and creatures with emotion. Take for example Kant's analysis regarding ‘the good will’. When addressing someone as being ‘good hearted’ or ‘good natured’ someone’s ‘good will’ according to Kant does not fall into the same category. Kant