Difference Between Kant And John Stuart Mill

1502 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Immanuel kant views

Even though at the first glance, the two most influential philosophers in human history - Immanuel Kant and John-Stuart Mill seem to have a lot of disagreements on the central concepts of their moral philosophies – for example, while Kant is concerned more about the intentions of an action, Mill, on the other hand, believes that the consequences of an action are the only justification necessary for an act to be good or moral or right, they still have beliefs in common, such as the concept of the greater good and base their moral systems on a fundamental first principle.
Among all those concepts, which Kant and Mill disagreed with each other, morality (what is good and right) is the most fundamental (essential) one. Kant, who is widely considered …show more content…

For Mill, the goal of morality is “not solely the pursuit of happiness, but the prevention or mitigation of unhappiness”. (Mill, pp15) For many other philosophers criticized him, by arguing that if happiness means a continuity of highly pleasurable excitement, it is evident enough that this is impossible. For a state of pleasure lasts only moments or in some cases, hours or days, and is the occasional brilliant flash of enjoyment, not its permanent and steady flame. Therefore, to response to these criticisms, Mill argues that if pure happiness is impossible to be always obtained and last forever, then we should at least reduce the amount of pain that may result from our …show more content…

For Kant, duty – that is doing what you ought to do, is the key to morality. Kant believes that humans have autonomy, and autonomy is essential for any human to use reason to dictate morality. Therefore, everyone knows their duty, and should tries to do his duty. It is immoral if people preserve their lives, in accordance with their duties, but not from duty. However, if an unfortunate man, wishes for death and yet preserves his life - not from inclination or fear, but form duty, then his maxim indeed has a moral content. Moreover, Kant’s theory of duty can always be traced back to the theory of universalized maxim. According to Kant, “An action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose that is to be attained by it, but in the maxim according to which the action is determined.” (Kant, pp12) Therefore, to sum up, an action has no moral worth if it is not done from duty, but just because an action is done form duty doesn’t necessarily mean it has its moral worth; the maxim that determined this action has to at the same time be able to become a universal law of

Show More
Related

  • Psychological and Ethical Egoism, Mill vs Kant, and Ethical Relativism

    910 Words  | 2 Pages

    Mill and Kant are both extremely endowed philosophers that argue extremely good points. Although their views differ in many different aspects, they lay a good foundation for belief for others to build on or to critique.

    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

  • Immanuel Kant Versus John Stuart Mill

    1168 Words  | 3 Pages

    Immanuel Kant Versus John Stuart Mill Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill; two opposing philosophers of their time. Even though they were living in different countries, their works have been against each other. In his book, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that there is nothing better than wanting goodwill by itself. He emphasizes the importance of goodwill over and over again and tries to show how effective moral philosophy can be if goodwill is used as the key element. Therefore, for Kant, the sole foundation of philosophy rests on goodwill.

    Read More

  • Hume vs. Kant: Moral Philosophy

    1735 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kant's notion of morality arose from his notion of a moral law; a law applicable to all people at all times, that imposes absolute duties on us. According to Kant, you "ought to act according to the maxim that is qualified for universal law giving; that is, you ought to act so that the maxim of your action may become a universal law" (Immanuel Kant 'Lectures of Mr. Kant on the Metaphysics of Morals'). Kant, unlike Hume, saw it as possible to act on reason alone, and whether or not a person acted morally depended on whether he/she had acted on reason alone.

    Read More

  • 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

  • Kant's Moral Theory

    1158 Words  | 3 Pages

    His moral theory states that the rightness of an action is determined by its end or consequence, which means that its moral obligation is based upon what is a good or desirable end, or consequence, to be accomplished. “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest-happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Bentham & Mill pg. 99). This means that Mill’s moral theory states that the consequences of an action are the only standard of right, what promotes happiness or pleasure, and wrong, promotes unhappiness or pain, not the rights or moral opinions involved in that circumstance. This opposed to Kant’s deontological moral system concerned with obligation, one’s duty, which is derived from reason rather than in the maximization of some good resulting consequence. Mill’s ethical view is very intuitive and it links pleasure with morality instead of possibly setting pleasure in opposition of morality. “The theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded – namely, that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain” (Bentham & Mill pg. 99). His utilitarian principles provide organization to a person’s intuitive morals, such as murder being morally wrong. It also follows people’s common sense belief that pain is bad and pleasure is good which is universal in all people even among those who may have other different and conflicting moral beliefs.

    Read More

  • Kant vs. Mill: Human Rights and Utilitarianism

    1725 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant 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.

    Read More

  • What Is The Difference Between John Stuart Mill And Kant

    1055 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Mill Vs Kant

    328 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Mill Vs Kant

    1769 Words  | 4 Pages

    Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher during the 18th century who attacked topics such as morality and justice. He developed his ideas about morality separated against one’s beliefs, mostly due to religion having different variables in which one turns to when looking for an answer. He stated that one should follow categorical imperatives due to the fact that they are rules that everyone must abide by, regardless of what we, as individuals, desire.

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant And John Stuart Mill

    2613 Words  | 6 Pages

    To what degree is a rational agent allowed to pursue his own goals or to choose one action over another? Both Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill answer the question of what makes a person free. Two different conceptions of individual freedom and autonomy are present by them and for this reason these philosopher differ on why it is that freedom and self-governance should be valued. In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant puts forward a normative conception of freedom and autonomy where by one has the capacity to deliberate and give himself laws. It is based on this claim that he makes his argument that autonomy should be valued because it is the sole principle of our moral law. In On Liberty, Mill propounded that freedom was doing as one pleases, and unlike Kant promoted a personal account of autonomy wherein an individual is encouraged to decide for one’s self one what ever course of action they desired- often regardless of a particular moral. The good consequence of progress was the core reason that Mill felt that one should value this type of autonomy.

    Read More

  • Jeremy Betham's Ideas Of Utilitarianism

    1007 Words  | 3 Pages

    The author asserts that whereas both of their ideas were centered around achieving the greatest pleasure for the most people, to Betham greatest meant “most,” and to Mill greatest meant “best” (3, 6). Betham, the founder of utilitarianism, emphasized the quantity of happiness. Betham’s idea is that the right thing to do is consider all available options for actions, and calculate the pleasure over pain, considering other people and the way they will be affected more important than one’s own self. Betham believed there were seven ways to calculate this pleasure, and that there were four sanctions that should shape the way we behave; the sanctions were considered punishment for immoral actions (3-4). Mill’s version of utilitarianism emphasized the importance of quality over quantity. According to Mill, only pleasure, and freedom from pain are desirable results (4). Mill’s idea includes the Christian rule of loving your neighbor as yourself; this is noted as being the “spirit of the ethics of utility” (4). In the text, the author distinguishes between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism, and gives more ideas from Betham and Mill, as well as Kant and Martin Luther King, Jr. Act-utilitarianism questions what should be done to result in the greatest happiness for all people, and rule-utilitarianism questions what rule should be followed in order to achieve such great happiness (5). Immanuel Kant created the idea of the categorical imperative, which he considers the fundamental principle of morality; this idea focuses on whether or not actions can be universalized (11). According to the author, “the categorical imperative isn’t concerned with what you do, but how you do it, since if the how is right, the what will be right” (11). The author includes another scenario: the murderer at the door, in which a decision should be made whether to lie or not

    Read More

  • Kant Vs Mill

    129 Words  | 1 Pages

    The issues of morality can be expressed through examples of different methods of analyzing a situation. John Stuart Mill's view of "Utilitarianism" is to create more pleasure and less pain for everyone involved. Immanuel Kant's view is to do what is morally just in the situtation. The Millian approach is a consequential theory because the act is determined by the outcome of what is right or wrong. However the Kantian view explains morality through forms that he believes are essential to free and sensible judgment. In this paper I will prove that Immanuel Kant's view is the best choice when these two theory's are discussed because free will gives people the right to make a decision not based on how it effects others but how it effects the individual.

    Read More

  • Kantian Ethics: The Importance of One's Duty

    1315 Words  | 3 Pages

    Now that I have laid out the Kantian definitions of “duty” and “moral actions,” I can further discuss Kant’s view in ethics more specifically. Kant expresses ethics differently than utilitarianism, as he displaces the importance of emotions in decision-making; however, he does mention the presence of emotions and feelings without disregarding their existence. Kant stresses the importance of reason and rationality, because human beings are the only beings on earth that have this trait and he believes it should be used sufficiently in our decisions. In order to act morally, humans must use reason in their mental processes and freely choose to follow and fulfill moral principles, laws, and rules in order to be truly moral beings. To further express the moral worth of duty, duties are performed to fulfill and obey moral laws and when humans use free will to choose to do so. Kant also...

    Read More

  • Kant And The Wrongness Of The Lying Promise By John Stuart Mill

    910 Words  | 2 Pages

    Kant’s theory is that an action must be done from duty in order to have any moral worth, therefore the moral worth of the action is depended entirely on the reason to perform the action not the consequence. Kant’s universal law test states that one should, “never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant, 14). Kant’s objection is that the lying promise is a violation of duty and reason. Mill criticizes Kant of being a consequentialist and a closet utilitarian. Through Kant’s reasons for wrongness of the lying promise, conclusion on consequences of lying in our moral system and Mills idea of no true objectivism, I will show that Kant is not merely a closet utilitarian.

    Read More

More about Difference Between Kant And John Stuart Mill

Open Document