John Stuart Mill And Immanuel Kant

1786 WordsJul 28, 20168 Pages
John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. They both had very different views when it came to the ethics of philosophy. They also though had some of the same views as each other. Both were concerned with the moral qualities of actions and choices of a person, but neither of them was much interested in about what makes a "good person". They also different views and some of the same views when it came to lying. One thought it should never be done. The other thought it should be used as a last resort. First, we will talk about Immanuel Kant. Kant 's theory was a deontological one. This meant that he believed that the moral worth of an action in the action itself rather than in the consequences of the action. Kant believed that the good action is one in accordance with our duty. Mill, on the other hand, was more of a utilitarian. He was a consequentialist, believing that the goodness of an action is measured by what its outcomes are. He locates the goodness in the amount of happiness it gives rise to and takes issue with Kant over what could be described as his "empty formalism". In this paper, we will be exploring both theories, but we will be favoring Kant’s theory. We will be applying both the theories to a case. The case being you lost your Philosophy textbook and then borrowed your friend’s Philosophy textbook to study for an upcoming test, which you also unfortunately lost. This morning your friend, asked for his book back so he can study for the same test. You looked into
Open Document