Kant And John Stuart Mill 's Utility Based, Utilitarian Moral Theory

Throughout Philosophy, morality is a central theme. Although each scholar views the definition of morality differently, the goal of people to be better and think for themselves is the main focus. Many philosophers have defined and categorized utilitarianism in different ways. In normative ethics, Jeremy Bentham believes an action is right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it produces the reverse of happiness but not just the happiness of a person who performed the action but also everyone that was affected by it (Duignan). Utilitarianism is the view that the morally right action is the action that has the most good (Driver). The foundation of morality in utilitarianism comes from utility or intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). In utilitarianism actions are evaluated by their utility instead of intrinsic properties of the actions (Skorupski 256). Utilitarianism says certain acts are right or wrong in themselves making us perform them or do not do them at all. On the contrary, concepts of the good go hand and hand with that of rights and obligation causing obligation to be determined by intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). John Stuart Mill theory of utilitarianism reveals what is utilitarianism, the morality, proof of validity, and the connection between justice and utility in the study of thinking.

The strengths and contributions in Kant’s theory include: 1) he marks a distinction between duty and inclination to make clear that morality is more than personal preference, 2) counters the “utilitarian presumption that the punishment of the innocent can be justified if the majority benefit” (no discrimination), 3) gives humans intrinsic worth as the rational high point of creation. The distinction between moral and inclination is that moral actions have to be nether self contradictory and universal. An example of duty is the prima face duties, such as fidelity, gratitude, and justice, proposed by W.D. Ross. One noteworthy strength of Kant’s theory is that it is good for both believers and non-believers of God and it opposes human lives as a means to the end. A morally good man needs to have good will and fulfils his duty. Kant’s ethical theory is based on duty as we ought to act morally as to do our duty- to obey the moral law. There is simply no room for feelings, inclination, love or occasion when related to moral decisions. Kant’s emphasis on our duty is similar and can be treated as compatible with the Ten Commandments in Christianity as its believers’ moral duty is to obey the Ten Commandments. Kant’s theory of ethics rejects utilitarianism, the “doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority,” which grants more fairness towards the

Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.

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

According to the Kantianism approach the right or wrong action is not taken as a concern of consequence because you cannot control them. It is whether you can fulfill your duty. Whatever you are about to do, and why you are going to do it, is your maxim. Kant explains that the only thing that has intrinsic value would be the goodwill, and he believes that the goodwill is the only good without limits. Moral decisions are the structure of the person by good reasons, features, and the appreciation of the law. A person would do an action not because of what that action produces, in the sense of past experiences, but that they understand by reasoning that the action is the right thing to do. The standard that Kant uses to explain efficient motives and is exercised by everyone is called categorical imperative. It gives us a way to analyze moral actions and make moral reasoning’s. It is used to decide if an action is morally important and is the basics to fulfill universality and rationality. Kant using the Principle of Universalizability to determine whether we are fair and consistent. Below I will demonstrate how it connects to my

The subject of good will for Kant is controversial. Kant believes that good will is not based on a reaction to the consequences, either negative or positive, merely by the intention of which the act was made. When an action is done in good will, the reasoning is not emotional (Johnson, 2008). It does not done out of sympathy or empathy for the individual, rather by a sense of duty. This is the controversial part because many believe that while good will is based on positive intentions, the act is performed through a feeling of love for the fellow man. Kant believes that good will focuses on all human beings regardless of feelings of love, friendship, bond, hatred, or lack of caring. This is why the best way to describe it is duty. However, Kant was not implying that no other motivating factor fuels good will. He was simply stating that when there is a dilemma that has the individual questioning the good will or morality of a decision that it is best to look at it from an unbiased view (Johnson, 2008). Removing emotional attachment from the situation has already proven to be helpful in making rational decisions in an otherwise difficult moment.

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

1. In his discussion of the first formulation of the categorical imperative (Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law) Kant draws a distinction between perfect and imperfect duties. Introduce this formulation of the categorical imperative and discuss how we should make the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties.

The good will calls for certain obligations known as duties. Kant suggests that duty ought to be done out of acknowledgement of the importance of moral law. The first proposition of duty that Kant puts forward states that actions are good only when they are committed out of a sense of duty. Moral actions are not done in the desire of a particular result, and the importance is instead found in the purpose behind the action. Kant argues that moral worth is never found in what is hoped to be attained by a certain choice, but in the maxim according to which the action was done. Duty should always be done out of recognition of significance of abiding by the moral law.

Kant’s first proposition is an action has moral worth only if it is done out of duty, such as when someone who has absolutely no interest in donating to the poor does so out of duty. His second proposition is that action has moral worth not because of its aim, but because of the maxim on which it is based, meaning that it would not matter if the intent failed, as long as the principle was good. His third proposition is that duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law, such as if an individual is in an embarassing spot, they could will the lie, but not will the maxim to lie. Kant argues that everything is secretly done in self benefit, an example can be an individual helping another merely for the fulfilled feeling.

How do we apply aged philosophies to present day problems? Like his forefather John Stuart Mill, modern thinker Peter Singer approaches moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree that selflessness can end human suffering. In addition, their views concerning the significance of consequences align; however, they conflict on the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism by accurately recognizing the discrepancy between absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also by considering the intricate concept of motive.

A famous psychological and philosophical topic is the trolley question. The trolley question, in variant ways, asks people how they would handle life and death decision making or what is morally good versus what is morally evil. This question falls under the umbrella of moral philosophy, also known as ethics, which asks questions of morality. There are a vast number of moral philosophies one can align themselves with, but two major categories of moral philosophy are the most popular and the most debated. These are John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism and Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. In looking at the three trolley cases, one can align themselves with either Mill, Kant or create their own perspective.

Kant: It’s not only what you do that matters, but your motivation behind it as well. / Duty to do something depends not on the other’s rights, but on the rational assessment of what is the right thing to do based on the various types of relationships that you have with that person. / The only thing that is intrinsically good is the good will, rationality to do what is right for the right reason. / Good will is the only thing fully under our control. / Good will is being motivated to do what is good for the right reasons. The right reasons are ones that are rational. / Motivation should come from moral law or duty.

Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, and he described it thus, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 2008). This basic condition through which the moral principles guiding the relations between human beings is expected of all rational individuals, and determines how they express their moral autonomy and equality. All rational individuals who are morally autonomous willingly comply with the categorical imperative. They then use it to determine the form and scope of the laws which they will institute in order to safeguard these important conditions that form the basis of human rights (Denise, Peterfreund & White, 1999). According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to exercise reason, and this is what forms the basis for protecting human dignity. This exercise of reason must meet the standards of universality, in that the laws formulated must be capable of being accepted universally by all equally rational individuals (Doyle, 1983). Various accounts documenting the historical development of human rights overlook Kant’s moral philosophy, but it is very clear that, through the categorical imperative, he provides the ideals of moral autonomy and equality

Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)