Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is better known for his Categorical Imperative Theory in which he bases

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 Kant, a German philosopher, specifically a deontologist, has two imperatives: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. These imperatives describe what we ought to do and are only applicable to rational beings because they are the only beings that recognize what they ought or ought not to do. The hypothetical imperative is when an individual’s actions are reasoned by their desire, so they only act with the intention of fulfilling their desires. The categorical imperative is what human beings ought to do for their own sake regardless of whatever else they might desire. The categorical imperative has two formulations. Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative states that one ought to only act on maxims that can be used as universal law. This formulation is based on its urgency and unity in the society. When a maxim cannot be determined a universal law, then it is morally impermissible to act upon it. Apply this formulation to the example of the lying promise: this cannot be willed as a universal law because trust will no longer be a part of society. If everyone were to make a lying promise to get money without retribution, then people will eventually recognize they are being deceived, which will result in a more selfish community. When one wills something as a universal law, then it is for the intention to better the state and community. This proves that the lying promise is not a maxim to live by.

Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is a theory that basically relays the same message that most mothers teach their kids, and that is to do the right thing. The categorical imperative could be easily explained by the Golden Rule about treating others as you would like to be treated. Kant dives a little deep with his theory, however, and breaks the categorical imperative into three formulations. The first formulation is about essentially removing yourself from a situation and doing what is best for everyone. Kant is basically saying that it is unethical to make decisions that affect everyone, but only benefits you. The second formulation is about making sure that

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

Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two well-known ethical philosophers that came forward and shared their beliefs to the world. These two philosophers came about at roughly the same time, but both have different philosophies about what to do in an ethical dilemma. Kant focuses on the morality of duty and good will. On the other hand, Mill is dedicated to a utilitarian mindset, meaning that the greatest happiness for the greatest amount (Solomon & Murphy, 2000). In an ethical dilemma, Kant and Mill would have separate approaches to a situation.

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

Kant’s Ethics may best apply to modern business. Kant said right action based on a set of moral rules, and the right action is supposed to be the one that conforms with these rules, whereas certain other types of action are morally forbidden. He also suggests that people should be treated "with respect and as ends in their own right, not solely as means to other's ends." On the contrary, Mill’s ethics only concern about the happiness of majority instead of duty itself. Thus, the question how could Kant’s “austere” system do better for business needs than Mill’s flexible business ethics. I would say that although Mill’s Ethic is a functional system of moral analysis, but the decision is easily changeable when the consequence change and in

Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by

Kant and Mill held distinct moral theologies that reflected what they valued the most. While Kant justified actions that followed his two rule code of universal application and selflessness, Mill viewed any action as moral as long as it benefited the most individuals (x). In a similar way, Kant and Mill both made decisions that benefited the individuals around them. Their different moral theories both encouraged the practice of making decisions that provided the needs (Deontological theory) and happiness (Utilitarianism) of others (x). However, Kant’s shortcomings and flaws helped distinguish Mill’s greater theory that would revolutionize the world. For example, the more individuals make decisions according to Mill’s theory, the more happiness

An argument in favor of Kant’s theory would be that it is consistent and impartial, whereas, Mill’s theory is unpredictable and can lead to fear and mistrust since one cannot predict what another’s actions would

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

John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant in my opinion was two great scholars with two great but very different views, on morality. John Stuart strong beliefs was named Utilitarianism. Simply stated Utilitarianism is the belief in doing what is good specifically for the greater good of the masses/everyone not just someone.

Mill claims that morals find their root in Utility, otherwise called the Greatest Happiness Principle.(513) The essence of this is that actions are right in proportion to how much happiness results from them and wrong in proportion to how much they cause the reverse of it.(513) In defending this, he claims that

Mills believes ethics should be centered on the principle of utility. Every ethical creed should give the responsible agent some freedom to adapt behavior to unique features of the circumstances, and in any noble faith, this can allow self-deception and dishonest reasoning to get in. For instance, when an individual tries to force

a dress - which does not in fact suit her - just to make her feel