Comparing Moral Theories Of Kant And J. S. Mill

Along with other noted philosophers, John Stuart Mill developed the nineteenth century philosophy known as Utilitarianism - the contention that man should judge everything in life based upon its ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. While Bentham, in particular, is acknowledged as the philosophy’s founder, it was Mill who justified the axiom through reason. He maintained that because human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, they are not merely satisfied with physical pleasures; humans strive to achieve pleasures of the mind as well. Once man has ascended to this high intellectual level, he desires to stay there, never descending to the lower level of

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.

Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

Kant’s ethics is the most influential expression of an approach to ethics known as deontology, which is often contrasted with consequentialism. The distinctive feature of deontology is that it approves or disapproves of actions in and of themselves. For instance, according to Kant, lying is always wrong because we cannot will it as a universal maxim that lying is okay. The consequentialist view, by contrast, argues that moral value lies not in our actions but in their consequences. The utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill is one of the most influential forms of consequentialist ethics. Mill argues that we should always aim at ensuring the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and that, for instance,

Both Kant and Mill describe morality as a responsibility towards positive impacts. Kant views morality as thought out actions leading to positive outcomes for others through means of using ones conscience (Kant, Immanuel, 2). Therefore, a person’s actions should result in a positive impact on others, and a person should think carefully before doing something to ensure that. Immorality as defined by Kant describes self-centered actions that do not benefit any other human being while Mill’s theory focuses on the majorities’ happiness. However, if the action leads to dissatisfaction and disappointments, Mills regards such a situation as immoral. For both Kant and Mill, moral actions result in a certain level happiness or societal

Immanuel Kant states that moral law must be discovered through a priori investigation in order for it to be universal. He rejects that moral law can be discovered through empirical feelings or experiences. He says, “All philosophy insofar as it is founded on experience may be called empirical, while that which sets forth its doctrines as founded entirely on a priori principles may be called pure” (Kant 1). Kant values a priori knowledge on a higher level than empiricism when it comes to establishing universal moral standards due to its “pure” objectivity.

In A Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanual Kant, unlike David Hume, aimed to establish an absolute system of morality based upon reason. Kant’s conceptions regarding what is moral and how someone should behave ethically, are often seen as contradictions to those proposed by Hume, who holds an empirical stance. As mentioned, Kant emphasizes the necessity of basing morality on a priori principles; he puts faith in the power of human rationality and believed that reason alone, not feeling, is a key to advancing human morality. An ethical system based upon reason would provide the framework for moral principles acceptable to all. Kant’s fundamental moral principle, the categorical imperative, tells one how to act regardless of what end or goal is desired, which correlates with his idea that people must be treated as ends and not as means. He also disapproves the action of lying and deems it to be morally wrong, as it corrupts one’s ability to make autonomous, rational decisions. While some may argue that Kant’s system of morality is flawed, Kant’s theories do prove to be convincing, even more so than his predecessor David Hume; Kant’s conceptions of what is moral and how someone should behave ethically are somewhat idealistic, however, his ideas should act as a model in which humans strive towards.

Immanuel Kant argues that morality is based off of rationality. A maxim, or a moral code, that can be universalized without falling apart would be considered rational and therefore morally just. Kant urges us to make moral decisions using maxims that can be universalized, think about the act in and of itself instead of the potential consequences, and also to never treat anyone as a means only, but as an end. In making moral judgments that can only be universalized we are given a formula to guide us.

In his book, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant explores the issues of human morality, and attempts to “seek out and establish the supreme principle of morality” (Kant 60). Despite acknowledging that human beings will still most likely act morally, whether or not they have a clear understanding of moral principles, Kant explains that a clearer understanding of moral principles can allow individuals to fulfill their moral obligations, and keep their motivations pure.

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.

A discussion of what makes an action moral can not be had without thoroughly examining the theories of Immanual Kant and John Stuart Mill. Mill bеliеvеd that an action 's consеquеncеs dеtеrminе its moral worth, whilе Kant arguеd that morality of thе action dеpеnds on thе good will. Basеd on thе two contradicting thеoriеs abovе, this papеr will support Mill 's viеw of thе moral worth of an action bеcausе it is dеtеrminеd by its practical and usеful consеquеncеs in our sociеty. Kant’s dismissal of an action 's consеquеncеs is irrеlеvant to our sociеty 's moral valuеs. Thе aim of this papеr is to clеarly show how Mill’s bеliеf to do good for all is morе appropriatе for our sociеty than Kant’s principlе that it is bеttеr to just do what 's morally right. Both Kant’s and Mill’s theories will be examined in order to еxplain why J.S. Mill offеrs a bеttеr guidе to moral bеhavior whilе dеscribing thе diffеrеncеs hе distinguishеd bеtwееn rights and rеsponsibilitiеs of human bеings to thеmsеlvеs and sociеty.

Kant’s supreme principle of morality is also based on reason. According to him, acting on principle signifies that we should do something simply because it is the right thing to do. In addition, he argues that the morality of an act depends on a person’s intentions. A moral act is one done for the right reasons, even if it has bad consequences or it is not in the agent’s best interest. In other words, the highest function of reason is to establish good will, not happiness (Kant, P.96). In his view of morality, self-interest and duty come into conflict since performing one’s duty does not necessarily make someone or others happy. In fact, being ethical often hurts. Overall, happiness plays almost no role in Kant’s morality. In his opinion, a good will is not good because it tries to promote some good end. Firstly, a good will is always good, good unconditionally, and never in any way bad. Secondly, all other goods, for instance, gifts of nature or fortune, are good only conditionally and are worthless or even bad when the relevant conditions are not satisfied. Lastly, the goodness of any conditioned good depends on it being combined with a good will. This concept of a will estimable in itself and good without regard to any further end is captured in Kant’s first proposition: Only an act done from duty has moral worth (Kant, P.98). Having a good will is the condition to be satisfied for any other good

Utilitarianism is one of the most commonly used ethical theories from the time it was formulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill in the nineteenth century. In his work, Utilitarianism, Bentham “sought to dispel misconceptions that morality has nothing to do with usefulness or utility or that morality is opposed to pleasure” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 53). To simplify the utilitarian principle, which is one of utility, one can surmise that morality is equated with the greatest amount of utility or good for the greatest number of people (MacKinnon, 2012). Also, with its orientation to the “end or goal of actions” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54), Utilitarianism thus, espouses the consequentialist principle, e.g., the evaluation of any human act lies not so much in the nature of the act or the drive behind the act but rather the result of the act (MacKinnon, 2012).

Immanuel Kant adheres to Deontological ethics. His theory offers a view of morality based on the principle of good will and duty. According to him, people can perform good actions solely by good intentions without any considerations to consequences. In addition, one must follow the laws and the categorical imperative in order to act in accordance with and from duty. Several other philosophers such as Hannah Arendt discuss Kant’s moral philosophy. In her case study: “The Accused and Duties of a Law-Abiding Citizen”, Arendt examines how Adolf Eichmann’s actions conformed to Kant’s moral precepts but also how they ran of afoul to his conception of duty. In contrast, John Stuart

According to Kant, morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right thing.  Is that true?