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 …show more content…
Even though Kant does acknowledge that behaviour and actions that produce a good outcome or consequence is in fact aligned with morality, he believes if you do anything that benefits you is wrong. As a personal example, I volunteer and produce ‘good’ actions because not only do I know it is right, or the good thing to do, but it gives me a sense of purpose. I feel good putting people before myself. Some people will do nice things for others because it makes them feel good as well. In my opinion, if people love to help others and act in ethically sound ways because it gives them a feeling of approval, and the action is causing a positive consequence, that should be moral. It should be a wonderful thing that mankind can actually have feel good chemicals run through there body when assisting humanity. Kant should take this into consideration that if we feel good acting in good ways, it is more likely to be sustainable.
John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham have been recognized as the founders of Utilitarianism. Contrary to Kant’s moral theories, Utilitarian’s would disagree with most of Kant’s theory. While Kant believed that it is the intention of the action that should be recognized as moral or unmoral, J.S Mill and Bentham would say that it is in fact the outcome of said action that determines morality.
Mill
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?
In chapter one, Kant discusses the good will, and he wants to show us the idea of a good will by going through the concept of duty. Kant gives many examples about duty to find out whether the action was done from the obligation or the self-interest.
Another topic that Kant contributed to is morality. According to Kant, moral laws cannot be derived from human nature. To put it in other terms, it is not human nature that should be used as a model to how we should behave morally. Kant believed that humans do not always make the right moral decisions because human nature can be flawed at times, often times choosing an animalistic desire over doing something that is morally permissible. In addition, Kant believed that the outcome of human nature is not the central issue when it comes to knowing what is right or what is wrong. Instead, Kant believes that it each of the individual actions that should be analyzed to see if it is morally wrong or if it is morally right. Kant’s point of view about morality is different from previous philosophers, because most of them looked to human nature in order to find the morally right things to do.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
According to Kant, morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right thing. Is that true?
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
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).