John Stuart Mill Ethical Analysis

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.

The Metaphysical principles of virtue describes Kant’s views of lying.

He universalizes this by saying that if one person lies then everyone lies. Kant says “lying is throwing away and, as it were, the obliteration of ones dignity as a human being” (Kant, 91). Kant then provides us with many strong examples on why he believes lying is unethical. Kant explains the two different kinds of lies, internal and external. Internal lies are worse because man convinces himself that a lie cannot harm anything and can possibly be useful (92). If one does not have a doubt about lying it can be dangerous. Kant says the only fear of man with an incentive to lie is the fear of punishment (92). If lying were to become a universal law the society would be in harm because no one could trust each other and life as a whole would be corrupt. Kant’s explanation of lying remains valid because it goes back to the categorical

imperative.
Mill agrees with Kant that lying is immoral and unethical but for his principle to be true there are cases where it is okay to lie. His theory is based off the Greatest Happiness principle. If one lied and felt pleasure and did not seek pain then ethically it would be okay but the only way this would work is if the happiness is free from negative consequences. For example, lying to protect a friend that did a crime would be morally wrong because there could be negative consequences to come.
While both have strong theory’s I think Kant’s is so focused on the action of lying that he misses some very important human actions. He does not seem to impute that no matter what humans are going to lie and for different reason. While not every reason is a good one to lie Mill has a better understanding of there must be some lying to benefit society in a positive way. Kant is basing most of his theory on human will and that is very hard to measure. Men are much more likely to see the consequences for the action and make a decision based on that. We can all agree that lying is unethical but I agree with Mill in very rare cases it is okay to lie to benefit the community.