Mill Vs Kant

328 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Mill’s utilitarian moral theory

To begin with, Kant believes that law comes from reason alone, it must apply to only rational creatures. Additionally, Kant believes in categorical imperatives, postulating that universal objective laws become dictated by reason, and that one must act in accordance with these laws as doing so is a good in itself. By contrast, Mill believes in determining morality based on maximizing our pleasure and minimizing our pain, therefore, Mill is taking a hypothetical approach, stating that one acts in a way only to obtain something we want. First of all, Kant theorizes that instincts ring superior to reason when leading us to happiness, therefore happiness as the only end is irrational, since reason will lead us to a purely good will. Furthermore,

Show More
Related

  • Kant and Mill’s Positions on Capital Punishment

    1862 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...places a person’s dignity and honor before life, while Mill places society’s happiness before all else. For Kant, capital punishment serves to preserve the dignity of an individual, while for Mill, capital punishment is used to protect society’s overall happiness. If it were up to you, which side would you take on capital punishment? Kant and Mill raise good questions and points in their perspective arguments, but there are too many contradictions for me to defend on either one of their points of views. I stand against capital punishment.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Marlart Mill And Karl Marx

    949 Words  | 2 Pages

    The theories of John Stewart Mill and Karl Marx, although vastly different, share the main idea of utilitarianism in the most basic sense. Utilitarianism promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Both philosophers believed that the people should be empowered when it came to the governing of society, and that the greatest threat to society is oppression.

    Read More

  • Kant Vs Aristotle

    1053 Words  | 3 Pages

    Kant says that good will is the only thing that is good. Human’s will, functioning well, is the only thing worth moral approval. It doesn’t matter if the person is smart or courageous if the person has a bad will. If someone is doing something for the wrong reason, but they still have courage doing it, it’s still not moral. The point of reason isn’t happiness, which is opposite from what Aristotle says. Some actions might seem like duties, but are just conformities with duty and because of that have no moral worth. An example we used in class would be the case of the misanthropic philanthropist who hates airports, but goes and helps the refugees because it’s the right thing to do. This shows that happiness doesn’t always come with moral

    Read More

  • Mills and Kant Moral Philosophy

    549 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Kant Vs Mill on the Issue of Lying

    1763 Words  | 4 Pages

    Firstly, by looking at the first patient, whether she gets a kidney from her father or a “cadaver kidney” , there will be no difference because she needs a kidney nonetheless. The second patient however, cannot agree to give his kidney away because one of the main reasons is that he’s scared and lacks “the courage to make this donation”9. So right at this point, it can be seen that it would be better if the father didn’t give his kidney away because it wouldn’t cause him any happiness, whereas the daughter has two options to gIn everyday life, whether on a personal base or on a professional base, difficult scenarios, or also known as moral dilemmas, are present. Depending on whom the person is or what their belief and value systems are, the issue can be ‘resolved’. In this particular case, questions arise about whether it is morally right to lie to family members when something can be done, ignoring the fact of its after effects. The case will be explained in details later on including the patient’s state, but to answer this ethical question, two theorists will be presented for the con and pro side. For the con side, the deontologist Immanuel Kant will be presented with his theory that lying is prohibited under all circumstances, as for the pro side, John Stuart Mill will be presented for the utilitarian theory stating that whichever decision brings out the most happiness is the right decision. After discussing the case, my personal view of what is right will be stated with my own reasons, which is that lying is the right decision to be taken.

    Read More

  • Six Types Of Character In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

    1079 Words  | 3 Pages

    There are two categories that he puts them in irrational and rational. In irrational he has two parts vegetative which is no share in reason. This means that no matter what the body digest or blood pumps and it cannot be stopped because it is part of the bodies job to do. The second part of the irrational is the appetitive which has a potency to share in reason. The desires conform to reason and it does not control the person. The second category is rational and it has reasoning or also known as intellective and this means that the person thinks with reason. For example, in math class two plus two will always be four. Appetitive and reasoning are to work together. If not a person cannot be considered virtues and therefore cannot be happy. A person has to feel the correct feeling for a specific situation to be able to be considered good or correct. For a person to be considered good they need to have appetitive and be rational of these things to make them virtues. Also the person needs to not neglect feelings because they are supposed to feel a certain feeling for a specific situation that is supposed to be that way. If the person does not feel it or refuses it, then they are not doing what a correct good and virtues person does. Only the good man has the objective feeling and action only when the person feels the correct emotions in the right way. A person that sees something sad should react sad because it is the correct feeling. They should not feel happy or glad of that sad situation or they are not a considered a good

    Read More

  • Mill’s Objection to Kant’s Moral Theory

    1356 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Happiness: John Stuart Mill vs Immanuel Kant

    1354 Words  | 3 Pages

    Happiness. People go to any means by which to obtain the many varied materials and issues

    Read More

  • A Comparison of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant's Ethical Theories

    3195 Words  | 7 Pages

    Each person's happiness is equally important.Mill believed that a free act is not an undetermined act. It is determined by the unconstrained choice of the person performing the act. Either external or internal forces compel an unfree act. Mill also determined that every situation depends on how you address the situation and that you are only responsible for your feelings and actions. You decide how you feel about what you think you saw.Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had an interesting ethical system. It is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality.

    Read More

  • The Moral Argument for the Existence of God

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    Kant’s reasoning…. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. All human beings desire and seek happiness ---------------------------------------------

    Read More

  • Hume Vs Kant

    1749 Words  | 4 Pages

    Hume’s ultimate goal in his philosophic endeavors was to undermine abstruse Philosophy. By focusing on the aspect of reason, Hume shows there are limitations to philosophy. Since he did not know the limits, he proposed to use reason to the best of his ability, but when he came to a boundary, that was the limit. He conjectured that we must study reason to find out what is beyond the capability of reason.

    Read More

  • Kant vs. Mill: Human Rights and Utilitarianism

    1725 Words  | 4 Pages

    Introduction One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another.

    Read More

  • kant

    830 Words  | 2 Pages

    The turn of the century brought the World Wide Web into the homes across the world, and along with all of the amazing features it has, it has also created a place for people to bring their sick fantasy’s to life. Armin Meiwes of Essen, West Germany, created an online chat room called the Cannibal Café. Meiwes was searching for a male aged 18-30 that would allow Meiwes to kill and eat him. Bernd Jürgen Armando Brandes answered the advertisement Meiwes had proposed and met with him. Brandes came to the house where Meiwes would kill him in a room made to be his slaughter room. Meiwes is reported to have never forced anything and only acted with permission from Brandes. Once Brandes was dead, Meiwes hung him on a meat hook, and ate the body over the next 10 months, freezing parts in the freezer next to pizza boxes. In December of 2002 a college student noticed Meiwes’ advertisement and reported it to authorities. Meiwes would be convicted of manslaughter, and then tried for Murder in 2006; he is currently serving a life sentence.

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant And Kant

    1575 Words  | 4 Pages

    Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character, the foundations of morality have long been subject to much controversy in the world, from this, the notion of morality and its impact in our daily life doesn't cease to be relevant. Even though human being might be created equal, differences among their ability to think, to reason, to act have been pointed out. From the fact that for most of people nowadays, the human being is judge by his actions in society, can we really define a basis for morality? Notice that Morality deals with the behavior, like objectives, motives and goals. Using comparison between Schopenhauer and Kant’s argument, I will try to figure out what is the real basis of morality for human being? What are the motives of our actions? What might be the repercussions in our daily life?

    Read More

More about Mill Vs Kant

Open Document