The Moral Dispute Of John Stuart Mill And Immanuel Kant

1500 Words6 Pages
Thesis statement
The philosopher Aristotle took the challenge of developing a full-fledged account of virtues that could stand on its own merits rather than simply criticize. He spoke about Eudaimonia meaning happiness of which he defined as the good. “The good, therefore, has been well defined as that at which all things aim.” His theories for happiness and fulfillment followed a theme of pain and pleasure and the proper function. He raised objections to the normative theories by defining his opposition to the claims of others. Aristotle’s argument constitutes taking the righteous path is taking the most ethical path rendering reward with heaven. Aristotle’s theory and argument will be explored further in this review along with the works of some of his successors.

The Moral Dispute
John Stuart Mill vs Immanuel Kant
Philosopher John Stuart Mill’s theory highlights utilitarianism and Kantian theory would be the total opposite. Mill’s position links happiness with morality and focused solely on the outcomes of an action. Philosopher John Kant’s theory emphasizes the importance of rationality, reliability, and neutrality with highlights on the reason or will of an action, regardless of the outcome. Both theories show themselves as multifaceted notions with Kantian’s theory, however, appearing greater to the utilitarian theory.
According to Mill, an action that maximizes happiness for the majority are good acts, a Good action will always yield the best
Open Document