The Philosohpy of Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant is referred to as the “father” of deontological ethics, which is also colloquially referred to as Kantianism, which provides a sophisticated explication of deontology. His philosophy embodies capitulating to one’s maxim, which he beliefs that to be good, however, only if one’s motives are unconditional and irrespective to external reason. The maxim is referred to as the individual’s intrinsic duty or obligation to one’s self or to others, which if applicable to everyone than it is congenial to the universal law. John Stuart Mill is an advocate of the utilitarian theory, which believes that happiness is the manifestation of pleasure and the absence of pain. These pleasures that Mill speaks of is divided into two forms, that being bodily and intellectually, which I will address later along this essay. This essay will articulate an adequate explication of the Deontological and the Utilitarian theory and explaining the position that Kant and Mill would have regarding the question, “is it morally permissible to tell a lie?” I will also be providing my position regarding which theory is to be most reasonable, as well as which theory best addresses the question.

Immanuel Kant philosophy begins with the concept of “good will,” which he believes to be the only good in itself. There are many qualities that attribute to the goodwill (courage, resolution, and perseverance), but they are not intrinsically good, because they too can be deleterious. However, with the interweaving of the goodwill and these qualities we than can see the manifestation of good in these qualities. Kant states that theses qualities can be miss directed without the proper adroitness of the goodwill applied to these qualities, the alignment of the will and...

... middle of paper ...

...e utilitarian method is that is it indifferent to partiality to one’s own position. With the majority rule tactic, it appears that the minority become aphonic and can easily be controlled—this philosophy would find it permissible for slavery to occur. Deontic ethic, on the other hand, attracts more towards duty over good. Deontic ethics differs in the sense that results cannot contravene in one’s reason in abiding by their moral duties. One cannot also be used as an ends, so slavery would not be permissible. The problem that I find with deontology is that it does not seem to be practical, because in the case involving lying; one cannot lie even if it was to save people. I believe in the utilitarian method, because even though majority rules, those are intellectually aware would find it acceptable for discourse among the citizens, disregarding their social position.