Immanuel Kant And John Stuart Mill

What is really ethical? What is right? What is wrong? What are the factors involved in making the distinction between killing and letting die? What is the difference between killing one to save five and leaving one to die while rescuing five? Philippa Foot created a thought experiment that presents two cases known as Rescue I and Rescue II. In these cases, one must create a dissimilarity between doing and allowing. They must ask themselves what would be the moral thing to do. Philosophers have tried to explain the concept of morals and ethics and create systems to relate the two. John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant are both two of these kind of philosophers. They express conditions on morality which are then applied to an ethical position. These conditions both explained what they believed is right and wrong and who benefits from what, but they are very different. Mill and Kant’s ethical positions foil one another and are very necessary when being applied to Foot’s thought experiment. This begs the question if you will do things to save the greatest number, or if you would do things strictly because it feels right. In Rescue I and Rescue II, Mill would provide happiness for the 5 individuals, while Kant would give life to whomever needed it simply because of his “good will.”

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?

Emmanuel Kant has three propositions of morality. One of the propositions is that in order to have moral worth, an action must be from a moral duty. The second proposition is that “action whether the action is in accord with duty has been done from duty or from some selfish purpose is easy”(Cahn 76). The third proposition is that “action accord with duty and the subject has in addition an immediate inclination to do the action”(Cahn 76). Each one of the propositions has a different distinct and they are connected to morality. There are several actions that can be done out of duty, while others can be done out of desire. Each one of these two are used to determine if it’s done in a moral way. Kant gives two examples, one example is about a self-interested shopkeeper and the other is a reluctant benefactor. In the self-interested shop keeper, the dealer is focused on having fixed prices for everyone. He needs the customers to keep coming

For my position paper, I am choosing to analyze the question on how philosopher Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand would react to Ant buying Sylvia’s mothers furniture but not telling her about the rare jewelry inside them. Although Ant offers her a good deal it does not cover the amount of rare jewelry that was found inside the furniture. For many, they would believe Ants actions are wrong, and he should have given Sylvia her mothers rare jewelry back. If he had already bought the furniture and then found the jewelry he then would have a right to not tell her. As I evaluate this equation I plan to observe it through the eyes of two very influential phosphors.

What it takes to be free does not necessarily mean escaping tangible shackles that binds around our wrists and ankles, but this could be removing the limitations that are put on specific people based on their status or gender. Immanuel Kant (1784) approaches the theme of ‘being free’ in ‘An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?’ that is about reaching a psychological state, which is to able express and act freely without being guided by the monarchy. However, Mary Wollstonecraft’s (1792) ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’ conveys ‘being free’ as giving females identical opportunities and treatments that males receive. Although both these authors approach what it takes to be free in their respective texts, however, they discuss about separate matters regarding this topic.

Immanuel Kant is one of the most influential personalities in the philosophical world. Kant was able to leave a landmark through his various philosophical works that have raised controversy primarily based on how they articulate social issues. Kant's social theories especially the ethical and moral theories have been major points of discussion amongst the scholars in the field of art (notably sociology and psychology). The scholars have been expressing divergent views and deduction on analysis of Kant's theories with some agreeing with the philosopher while others were expressing their contestation of the theories. However, it is inarguable that the Moral theory

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.

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.

The works of German philosopher’s Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx have played significant roles in the development of different sects of philosophy and religion. Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Konigsberg, East Prussia, now presently Kaliningrad, to a devout, poverty-stricken family of eleven children. Through his works, it is evident that Kant was raised in the religious teachings and values of pietism as his theories show a heavy influence of his religious upbringing. Kant as a young boy was accustomed to a routine of working and studying, and despite never travelling far from his hometown, he grew to be sociable and witty. Karl Marx was born almost a century later in the town of Trier, present-day Germany, in the year 1818 into a middle-class family. Marx studied a variety of disciplines, including law, philosophy and history, and became a preeminent philosopher, a revolutionary economist and a great leader. The revolutions of his time and his profound disapproval of the capitalist economic state inspired his works, particularly his concepts on authority and exploitation and his theory of history.

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 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

In an effort to understand progress and its goal in humanity, philosophers Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx each present their theories with Kant believing progress is made through the reform brought on by antagonism and social instability in humanity which will ultimately lead to perpetual peace, while Marx argues progress comes in the form of a worker’s revolution and the adoption of true communism that will lead to utopia. These German thinkers seek to define the guiding the force beneath humanity’s constant state of evolution to understand where it is headed and advise towards a goal they find ideal for humanity.

Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.

German philosopher Kant was first to introduce the Kantian ethics; hence, the named after him. According to Professor Elizabeth Anscombe, Immanuel Kant was Unitarianism’s rival; he believed actions that are taboo should be completely prohibited at all times. For instance, murder should be prohibited. Even though nowadays a person cannot be punished if death is involved as a self defense, from Kant’s perspective this is still prohibited, although sometimes these actions bring more happiness to the big majority of people than sorrow. Kant stated that before acting, one should ask his/her self: am I acting rationally and in a way that everyone will act as I purpose to act? Is my action going to respect the moral law or just my own purpose? If the answer to those questions is a no, the action must be abandoned. Kant’s theory is an example of the deontological theory that was developed in the age of enlightenment. According to Elizabeth, these theories say that “the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.”( Anscombe, 2001) Kant said that morality is built based on what he called “Hypothetical Imperatives”, but rather principles called “Categorical Imperatives” he referred to it as the supreme principle of morality. (Texas A&M University, n.d.) Cavico and Mujtaba reported on their book that Kant stated that morality

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.