Thomas Mill And Immanuel Kant Essay

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

John Stuart Mill presents a utilitarian argument in his writings. Utilitarianism is the doctrine that actions are morally right if they maximize utility, which is pleasure and the absence of pain. Mill concerns himself in his writing with the problem of placing reasonable limits on the

John Stuart Mill’s principle of utility or the greatest happiness principle is the foundation of his ethical theory. The principle of utility holds that an individual must always act in a manner that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. He defines happiness as pleasure or the

Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human

John Stuart Mill, among other things, was an English philosopher and economist who lived from 1806 to 1873. Mill grew up being immersed in the principles of utilitarianism. Mill’s essay on utilitarianism, titled Utilitarianism, was written to debunk misconceptions of and to provide support for the ideology. Mill’s essay and argument span five chapters, where his discussions range from definitions, misconceptions, rewards, methods, and validity. Utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the “morally right action is the action that produces the most good” (Driver). Mill believed that, as humans, we have an obligation to perform the action that achieves the best or most positive result or outcome. The best consequence in the experiment, according to Mill, would be to save as many lives as possible, and that would entail Jim killing the one Indian in order to save the rest of the Indians. Saving as many lives as possible, although having to sacrifice one life, would be the best consequence because it is “considered the absolute good” (Shakil). For this reason, Mill would advise Jim to kill the one Indian. Killing one in order to save the lives of many others is the best outcome out of all the choices. One proponent of utilitarianism is consequentialism. Consequentialism is the notion that whether an action is morally right or wrong depends “entirely on its consequences. An action is right if it brings about the best outcome of the choices available” (Utilitarianism).

In this paper I am going to attempt to answer a question utilizing a little help from one of two philosophers. First of all the question I will be answering is “Should the moral value of an action be determined by the intentions/character that inspire the action, or the consequences that result from the action?” Second, the philosophers I am going to discuss throughout this paper are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Now before I tell you my answer to this question I am going to explain these who these two philosophers are and what their viewpoints on ethics are.

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

Lying the one form of communication that is the untruth expressed to be the truth. Immanuel Kant states that lying is morally wrong in all possible ways. His hatred for lying has made him “just assumed that anyone who lied would be operating with a maxim like this: tell a lie so as to gain some benefit.”(Landau,pp.171) This is true for a vast number of people, they will lie in order to gain a certain benefit from the lie rather than the truth.It is similar to if you play a game of truth or dare, some rather pick a dare because it would release them from having to tell the truth. However, those who do pick truth still have a chance to lie to cover up the absolute truth.People lie in order to cover who they truly are. Even if you lie to benefit someone or something else, it would not matter to Kant because he does not care for the consequences. If you lie but have a good intention it is not the same for Kant, he would argue that you still lied no matter the consequence that a lie is a lie. “ While lying, we accuse others for not being transparent. While being hypocrites ourselves, we expect others to be sincere.” (Dehghani,Ethics) We know how it feels to be lied to by a person, so in order to not have the feeling returned, we hope the person will be truthful. We rather be surrounded by truthful people constantly despite all the lies that some people tell. No

John Stuart Mill and Emmanuel Kant would have very easy explanations on their views on the following case: Amy is very hungry, and considers the following plan: walk into a restaurant, order and eat the food, and walk out without paying. The wrongness of the act is practically self-explanatory. It is wrong to get away with a service that needs to be paid for. Aside from the fact that such act is illegal, because after all, Amy would technically be stealing from the restaurant, it is also morally wrong. Following the consideration of whether the act is wrong, Mill has a better explanation of why it is than Kant.

Across the globe, freedom of speech has become a rather controversial issue. This is shown more and more every day, from the Charlie Hebdo incident, to North Korea’s reaction to the American film The Interview. Cases like these show that freedom of speech has come to be seen more as a political right rather than a moral right. The theories of Kant and Mill have varying views on such matter. Before we can conclude whether freedom of speech is a moral right or not, we must first understand what it is.

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.

John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant in my opinion was two great scholars with two great but very different views, on morality. John Stuart strong beliefs was named Utilitarianism. Simply stated Utilitarianism is the belief in doing what is good specifically for the greater good of the masses/everyone not just someone.

Mill claims that morals find their root in Utility, otherwise called the Greatest Happiness Principle.(513) The essence of this is that actions are right in proportion to how much happiness results from them and wrong in proportion to how much they cause the reverse of it.(513) In defending this, he claims that

In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.

John Stuart Mill, in his Utilitarianism, turns morality into a practical problem. His moral theory is designed to help one evaluate his moral principles and senisibilites and be able to ajudicate conflictions in moral conflicts. Mill postulates that actions are right so far as they tend to promote happiness and minimize pain. This theory manifests itself as an impartial promotion of happiness. Morally "right" actions are ones which promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number number of people and reduce pain. Utilitarian moral theories need to be coupled with theories of well-being, so that we can point to what is being maximized through the moral theory's operation. Mill's moral theory is