Kant Vs Mill Analysis

One of Kant’s more controversial cases in which he stuck to the idea that lying would be wrong is that of the murderer at the door. If some murderer set on killing your roommate were to come to your door and ask

In this case I would disagree with the views of Mill, because I feel very strongly that if I was put in Jim’s situations I am not morally obligated to make the choice in killing one to save the many. No one’s life is greater or more important than the next. I can 't just do what other people think is more efficient or right in this situation most would save the majority of people to appease the overall happiness of everyone. I won 't because that one person doesn 't deserve to die either, and it doesn 't justify the outcome for me being that I am the one who has to take a life. This may be senseless but that is fine because whether I was there or someone else, somebody has to have their life taken to benefit the next. Whether it be 19 or 1 I personally could not weigh the two and make that choice because

Utilitarianism’s believe in that only the outcomes matter when it comes to decisions and morality, however, those outcomes can also be questioned. Mill forms the framework of utilitarianism by discussing it in a way that makes assumptions; these objections can also be questioned against also.

Mill’s core assumption of man is that he is a rational being who will strive to maximize his own utility. “I regard utility as the ultimate appeal… on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.” (Mill. On

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.

In July of 1994, Paul J. Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and later a pro-life activist, was prosecuted for killing Dr. John Britton, an abortion performing doctor, and James Barrett, a volunteer, outside a clinic in Pensacola, Florida. Prior to this, Hill commented on the murder of Dr. David Gunn, another abortion performing doctor, stating that it was a “biblically justified homicide (P. 215).” This statement shows how strong Hill’s beliefs were and leads one to assume that he did not regret killing Britton and Barrett. This paper will address the Hill case and determine the ethical parameter in which Paul Hill should have acted. The two philosophical approaches that will be examined and contrasted are

Kantian ethics states that the action must be universally acceptable, in order to be moral. Thus, Jim cannot kill the man, it would not be a moral action,as killing is not a universally acceptable action. Secondly, another important part of Kant’s theory refers to humans, and how they should never be used as a means to an end. Instead, people should not be used as instruments for something else, no matter how worthy the aim may be. Thus, Jim would be killing the man in order to save the rest – so he would be using him as a means of achieving something else. Therefore, if he were to kill the man, in order to save the rest, his action would be

The action with the least moral worth according to Kant would be when Gail Gaylee didn’t let the cat out of the bag that Bernie was the one who saved the people including herself. This action was partially done out of duty but didn’t take much willpower because anyone would feel obligated to do that because he saved her life, but this action was mostly done out of inclination because she would rather have the truth than have a great

Jim has found himself in a quandary. When arriving in a South American town he has happened upon a captain and his army about to assassinate twenty Indians in order to deter other Indians protesting against the government. Jim is treated as a guest to the town and offered the privilege of shooting one of the Indians in which case the captain will let the other nineteen go, however declining this offer will mean the captain will carry on as planned and kill all twenty.

For Kant goodness didn’t develop from certain experiences because experiences depend on different circumstances, whereas goodness needs to have an absolute legitimacy therefore being independent from circumstances. He also believed that as rational beings, humans need to have mutual respect for each other, meaning that no duty is greater than a person. With this being said, Kant would answer this thought experiment by saying that Jim should not choose to kill. The reason that Kant would choose this decision is because one of the ways lives that Kant believed in was that goodness didn’t depend on the circumstances of experiences so in this case arithmetic is not important, it is only a circumstance. It is Jim’s duty to act in a way that he would like other people to adopt as a way of life and no matter how many people would die in each decision, the circumstances, he cannot see an end as greater than a person.

Kant finds morality in duties and rights. Kant believed that we should have a set of moral absolutes and universal laws to govern ourselves. Kant’s first formation of this of law is: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” (Kant, 1785) This simply means that our actions should be such that a universal law could be instated allowing anyone in a similar situation to act the same way. For example: If you wouldn’t want murder to become a universal law, then murder is wrong and you shouldn’t do it regardless of the reasons. Using Kant’s philosophy to evaluate this case finds Dudley a murder regardless of the perilous situation the men were in. Under no circumstances should one man’s life be taken to save the rest. Kant would rule guilty in this case due to the fact that he simply would not want a universal law allowing this type of behavior to exist regardless of the reasons the men had to kill

In this essay I will assess and evaluate Mill’s concept of justice through the principles of utility. I will argue to defend Mill’s attempt to reconcile justice with the utilitarian principles he has explained by first summarizing these concepts and by proving utility.

The most convincing philosopher in my opinion is Mill. This is because, in explaining the base of morality, he says that the moral foundation should be utility a universal law of nature. And this in my opinion forms a very good basis for judgment of our action and the treatment of human and creatures. the moral foundation centralizes in human being in the achievement of happiness in people. Kant in my opinion conception of human freedom is wrong. Claiming that free will contradicts the necessity of free will, and must be operated in this existence, an if not it is not a true

First, he states that it is okay to lie so you can save yourself from embarrassment.(516) Secondly he claims that consistently telling the truth has it’s advantage in trust.(516) To this he says there are exceptions to this rule. Namely that if withholding information from someone results in saving them from evil occurring to them.(516) Even with these exceptions, he says that we have to recognize that the lie may be breaking down trust so we can truly weight the cost and the benefit of both.(516)

In this paper I will present and critically assess the concept of the principle of utility as given by John Stuart Mill. In the essay “What Utilitarianism Is” #, Mill presents the theory of Utilitarianism, which he summarizes in his “utility” or “greatest happiness principle” # (Mill 89). Mill’s focus is based on an action’s resulting “happiness,” # pleasure and absences of pain, or “unhappiness,” # discomfort and the nonexistence of contentment, rather than the intentions involved (Mill 89). After evaluating Mill’s principle, I will then end this essay by discussing my personal opinion about the doctrine and how I believe it can be altered to better suit real-life situations.