Janna Batara
Ethics PHL 205
Muraca
20 Feb 2017
Kant Vs. Mill. Actions speak louder than words. So much of our actions define us as a human being. Two philosophers who studied the morality of our actions are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Both have opposing thoughts. Immanuel Kant supported the idea that our actions come from a place of good will and duty, while John Stuart Mill argues that our actions are to make people happy, and minimize pain. Studying these two philosophers led to a self-reflection and realization of my own thought process and the actions that follow because of it. Immanuel Kant was a prominent German philosopher in the Enlightenment era. Kant argues that our desires and emotions are categorically imperative
…show more content…
We don’t act for the sake of pursuing that act but rather, our actions are derived from an inner motive. For Mill, it is to make the majority happy and receive gratification. For Kant, it is to follow our obligation as a free human. Their contradictions however, are their definitions of morality. Kant defines morality as something that is conscious driven, while Mill, on the other hand, defines morality as something that is situation and circumstance rooted. Mill's idea that actions are to make the most amount of people happy, is a contradiction to some of Kant’s beliefs. For example: lying. In accordance with Mill’s beliefs, lying is okay if it satisfies the majority. But Kant’s argument to this is that it would then contradict the true value of a lie. At the end of the day, a lie is still a …show more content…
Lying is still lying. What if those people find out that one lied? That would make the majority upset, and create a reverse reaction to one’s intent. Although the idea that our actions are to satisfy the majority stem from a good place, it is in my opinion, impossible. The truth is, everyone has a different mindset, and what makes one person happy doesn’t necessarily make another person happy. Mill said himself that a human’s happiness is reached at a complex level. Trying to please everyone, and acting to only please everyone doesn’t make much room for self-happiness. As selfish as that sounds, it seems to be impossible for one reach full happiness if their mindset is revolved around the happiness and judgment of
For more than two thousand years, the human race has struggled to effectively establish the basis of morality. Society has made little progress distinguishing between morally right and wrong. Even the most intellectual minds fail to distinguish the underlying principles of morality. A consensus on morality is far from being reached. The struggle to create a basis has created a vigorous warfare, bursting with disagreement and disputation. Despite the lack of understanding, John Stuart Mill confidently believes that truths can still have meaning even if society struggles to understand its principles. Mill does an outstanding job at depicting morality and for that the entire essay is a masterpiece. His claims throughout the essay could not be any closer to the truth.
Another motive for action is when something is done in accordance to duty, and actually wants to do it – this is also called immediate inclination. An example of this principle would be a man who is happily married. However, at the office, there is an attractive new intern that constantly hits on him. He does find the intern to be physically attractive but does not actually desire to be with her. He reflects that he could indeed have an affair with this intern if he wanted to but he wont in a million years because he is extremely happy with his wife. He wouldn’t risk that relationship for a chance at a fling. According to Kant, this would not have moral worth because it comes from immediate inclination, not from the motive of duty.
... a mechanism of social control of one’s actions. Finally, the biggest controversy between these separate views is that Kant believes that the justification of one’s actions is an appeal to reason while Mill’s an appeal to desire.
First, Mill establishes the foundation of his theory by addressing how we should seek happiness in our lives. He says, “The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agent’s
The first distinct articulation of the categorical imperative is the philosophy of morality.as Kant mentioned “Metaphysics of morals has to
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
Kant and Mill both try to decide whether the process of doing something is distinguished as right or wrong. They explain that right or wrong is described as moral or immoral. In the writings of Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals Kant says that you only need to “act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 30). Kant then states that a practical principal for how far the human will is concerned is thereby a categorical imperative, that everyone then is necessarily an end, and the end in itself establishes an objective principal of the will and can aid as a practical law (36). Mill on the other hand has the outlook that the greatest happiness principle, or utilitarianism, is that happiness and pleasure are the freedom from pain (Mill, 186). With these principles we will see that Kant and Mill correspond and contradict each other in their moral theories.
Immanuel Kant was German philosopher who was an influential figure in modern philosophy since he was one of the first to analyze the process of thinking. Kant was not only just a prominent figure in philosophy, but contributed greatly in metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics. Some of his major works were the Critique of Pure Reason, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Critique of Practical Reason, and Critique of Judgement. His form of ethics or philosophy is known as Kantian Ethics which are mostly based off of deontology, which is the ethical position that judges an action based on its morality and not the consequence. Like any philosophy on ethics, there are pros and cons to it and we will analyze them. I personally believe that
Mills might respond to the case of “framing an innocent person if doing so seems like it will maximize happiness.” That we all, may or may not obtain the greatest happiness. To do the right thing in this situation, we do not need to be constantly motivated by concern for the general happiness. The large majority of actions are intended for the greater good of individuals rather than the good of the world. Likewise, the world’s good is in direct correlation with the good of the individuals that constitute it.
Kant’s categorical imperative can provide a set of rules to formulate what a good person is and should do. Kantian philosophy is deontological and it requires people to always do their duty. Kant does not forbid feeling good or happiness, but it must be the case that each person can fulfill their duty even if they did not enjoy doing it. In summary, in order to determine whether or not a particular act is good or bad, morally speaking, we must apply the categorical imperative and I have provide justifications to use it in our daily day lives.
Mill writes that thinkers are still arguing the foundation of morality and constantly squabbling over the definition of right and wrong. He tells the reader that Plato wrote that Socrates first postulated the idea of Utilitarianism in his writings against the Sophists (Mill 1). He says man must test what is right and wrong seemingly against his own instinct, and that instinct can only give general principles of moral judgment (Mill 2). He writes that the intuitive and deductive schools taught that there is a science of morals but did not have a first principle. Rather they relied only on second principles to guide moral action. Mill writes that utilitarian arguments are indispensable for moralists and that the greatest happiness principle has influenced even those who vocally reject it (Mill
“Nor could one give poorer counsel to morality than to attempt to derive it from
In conclusion, Kant’s three formulations of the categorical imperative are great examples of how we should live our lives. Along with living our lives by the formulations of the categorical imperative, we should also treat every rational being as an end in itself. It is quite obvious that Kant’s theories are still in existence today.
...ould not want to be the one that is killed and you also can’t not kill because you would want to be one of the two people that are saved. As for Mill his ethics state that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness. It cannot be the same as the Golden Rule because Mill believes that pleasure is better than pain and that one should act in a way that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. However comparing to the Golden Rule treat others as how you would want to be treated – let’s say you like the feeling of pain, you would treat others with pain but Mill says that pleasure is better than pain and pain does not produce happiness. Overall one believes that both Kant and Mill’s ethics do essential relate to the Golden Rule but they cannot be the same as the Golden Rule.
... to state, “one can deceive in order to get what one wants," acting out of this generalized maxim will prove to be morally incorrect and the CI would lead to the wrong conclusion. Therefore, because the CI may lead to the morally wrong conclusion, the CI proves itself to be a useless principle unless supplemented by the idea of generalization; but without a formal method describing how to generalize a maxim, the CI may lead to contradictory results, and thus, it cannot be used to determine whether an action is morally correct. Where the application of the CI leads to opposite conclusions from the same situation, there is a contradiction, and thus, the CI cannot be true. Therefore, Mill’s criticism is fair, for if one cannot decide whether an action is right or wrong under all circumstances, than the CI is an incomplete theory that cannot be applied in any situation.