John Stuart Mill famously criticized Immanuel Kant and his theory of the Categorical Imperative by arguing that, “[Kant] fails… to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.” 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 argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ... ... middle of paper ... ...d in the discussion of promise keeping and beneficence, identifiable logical or practical contradictions arise when attempting to universalize morally impermissible maxims (according to the CI). Mill argues that the CI only shows “that the consequences of [the maxims] universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.” This is erroneous for there is no such “choice” available. The logical and practical contradictions that Mill fails to recognize produce an outcome (rejection of the maxim) necessitated by rationality and a free will. It is not that the consequences are unpleasant, but that their production is irrational. Works Cited Christine Korsgaard. Kant’s Formula of Universal Law. p542 Christine Korsgaard. Kant’s Formula of Universal Law. p546 Christine Korsgaard. Kant’s Formula of Universal Law. p548 Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 1, p. 4
From top to bottom, John Stuart Mill put forth an incredible essay depicting the various unknown complexities of morality. He has a remarkable understanding and appreciation of utilitarianism and throughout the essay the audience can grasp a clearer understanding of morality. Morality, itself, may never be totally defined, but despite the struggle and lack of definition it still has meaning. Moral instinct comes differently to everyone making it incredibly difficult to discover a basis of morality. Society may never effectively establish the basis, but Mill’s essay provides people with a good idea.
John Stuart Mill believes in a utilitarian society where people are seen as “things.” Moreover, in utilitarianism the focus of the goal is “forward-looking”, in looking at the consequences but not the ini...
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
In Section One and Section Two of his work. Kant explores his position on his fundamental principle of morality, or his “categorical imperative”, or his idea that all actions are moral and “good” if they are performed as a duty. Such an idea is exemplified when he says, “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant 14). The philosopher uses examples such as suicide and helping others in distress to apply his principal to possible real life situation. Kant is successful in regards to both issues. As a result, it means that categorical imperative can plausibly be understood as the fundamental principle of all morality. Kant’s reasoning for his categorical imperative is written in a way that makes the theory out to be very plausible.
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
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.
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?’.
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
...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.
1) Feldman, Fred. ‘Kantian Ethics’ in [EBQ] James P Sterba (ed) Ethics: the Big Questions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 185-198.
Kant presents his followers with both categorical and hypothetical imperatives (Reitan). The hypothetical imperatives, often dubbed the imperfect duties, basically state, “If you want X, do Y (Reitan).” In other words, hypothetical imperatives are not obligatory of people, but encourage certain actions for certain results. Categorical imperatives say, “Do Y, no matter what you want (Reitan).” These perfect duties, as they are referred to as, are rules that we must follow without any acceptable exceptions (Degrazia, Mappes and Brand-Ballard). These perfect duties include the forbidding of killing innocent people, lying, breaking promises, becoming intoxicated, committing suicide, and masturbating (Horn). Kant ultimately believes that reason dictates what is right and wrong through the categorical imperative of Kantian Deontology, which has two formulations (Reitan). The first states, “Act only on that maxim that you can at the same time (consistently) will to be a universal law (of nature) (Reitan).” This is the philosophical equivalent of “treat others the way you want to be treated.” The second formulation, which could arguably provide a different
John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher who contributed greatly to the fields of social theory, political theory, as well as philosophy. Mill was a strong proponent of the ethical theory of utilitarianism, and in his work, titled Utilitarianism, he provides support for the theory, and also attempts to respond to and do away with misconceptions held on it. On the other hand, Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who is widely regarded as one of the most important figures in modern philosophy. Kant has had a notable influence on a number of fields, such as ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. In his work Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant introduces a number ideas and concepts, such as Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives, as well as discussing duty. In both Mill and Kant’s ideas and philosophies focus on concepts that
...ins more faults than he mentioned. I do agree to the principle of utility relative to maximizing happiness for the most amount of people possible. However, in regards to my example about the computerized system that sacrifices a healthy person to save the lives of other’s, the use of the principle would be morally and ethically wrong. Although people have the choice to become organ donors, in the example, the computer would be killing someone instead of using an already deceased person’s organs to save another’s life. This issue is an example of the differences between Kant and Mill, which I believe if combined can make Mill‘s theory better suited for real-life situations. Intentions are not always the most significant factors similarly to how results are not. Therefore, combining certain aspects of Kant’s theory with Mill’s would make Mill’s work more appropriate.
In his book, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant theorizes an absolute and universal guide based on the principle of reason to determine what humans morally ought to do— the categorical imperative. The categorical imperatives consists of different formulations, which simply act as different ways of defining it. Within his formulations, Kant stresses the importance of universalism, equality, and
Kant invented the categorical imperative, which is a tool that can be used to understand whether certain maxims are rational, or not. Kant formulated the categorical imperative two different ways: the humanity formula and the universal formula. “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” This is Kant universal formula, which one should use and think about before performing a certain action. It means that one should perform an action only if he or she believes that this particular action could be used as universal law. In other words only if he or she believes that we can leave safely in a world where everyone could repeat that same action. Dr. Arnold used the example of promises. If Tim makes promises to Ben but does not intend on keeping his promises. He should think about how the world will be if everyone makes promises that they don’t intend on keeping, after a certain time no one will ever believe promises