The Mill Vs. Kant : An Evaluation Of Their Approaches Towards Ethics

Better Essays

Mill vs. Kant: An Evaluation of their Approaches Towards Ethics John Stuart Mill and Emmanuel Kant both have very distinct ideals and principles. Though they were both philosophers within the same century, but their ideals did not align with each other. Mill focused more on overall happiness, while Kant focused more on the reasons people have for committing certain actions. This is important because it makes the validity of actions and their moral worth put in question. The problem being addressed is what each of the theories implies about the actions people make, and that is important because it may lead people to live their lives in a different way. John Stuart Mill was one of the great philosophers of the 19th century. His works have …show more content…

Even if you factor in about 25 more negative units for killing, the overall happiness is still worth more. Therefore, Mill would say that it is morally acceptable. In both these examples, Mill thinks people should act on something based on its utility and not necessarily whether it is deemed right by societies standards. Some people think that Utilitarianism principles conflict with justice. This is because according to the principle, it is okay to violate people’s moral rights and treat people different depending on the situation. Mill tries to handle these conflicts by explaining what justice means. He says that justice has risen from people want to conform to the law and it is therefore extremely arbitrary. He says that people believe in justice if they want to, and that many people have different views on what is justified. Kant’s approach differs from Mill’s. Kant’s work that we are examining is the Metaphysics of Morals which depends heavily on rationality. Kant thinks that people’s moral truths come from a universal set of reasons that come naturally to all people who take the time to think about the consequences of their actions. His main theory relies on the categorical imperative which essentially means that a person should never act unless it is in a way that they can consistently say the maxim of their action will become a

Get Access
Get Access