Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarianism by john stuart mill analysis
Kantian ethics and utilitarianism
Kantian ethics and utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Utilitarianism by john stuart mill analysis
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 …show more content…
Although both share the similarity that they focus on rules that govern humanity as a whole, there are a number of differences in their ideas, namely in their differing opinions on the role of duty and what makes an action morally right.
One area where Kant and Mill have differing opinions is on the idea of duty and how one determines an actions moral worth. Kant, in his work, describes duty as the necessity to act out of respect for the law, rather than acting as a result of an inclination. Also, Kant makes the claim that the moral worth of an action is determined by its respect for duty and the law rather than personal inclinations. According to Kant, an action is morally right when, rather than being influenced by personal inclinations and desires, it is rather out of respect for the law or what is virtuous. Kant shows this in his work by starting, “Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law. I may have inclination for an object as the effect of my proposed action, but I
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.
Kant states that moral worth is the value of a good will in dutiful action. Dutiful actions done “from duty” have moral worth while dutiful actions that are merely “according to duty” have no moral
Approximately three hundred years separate the earliest of these works, The Prince, from the most recent, Utilitarianism, and a progression is discernible in the concept of morality over this span. Machiavelli does not mention the word "morality," but his description of the trends and ideals of human political interaction allow for a reasonable deduction of the concept. Locke, too, does not use the word, but he does write of "the standard of right and wrong." In contrast, Mill writes explicitly and extensively of morality in its forms, sources, and obligations. A logical starting point in this examination is a look at their relative views of human nature.
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.
John Stuart Mill’s moral belief centers around utilitarianism; utilitarianism basically states that actions are morally right if the produce the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. Immanuel Kant’s moral belief centers around deontology or the obligation
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.
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.
...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.
John Stewart Mill has a much different ethical view that Kant. Mill is a Utilitarian, which in the book is described that, “It claims that the morality of an action is determined by how well it promotes ‘utility’, which is defined as the greatest good for the greatest number” (417). This ethical view measures the morality of an act by what the outcome is. If it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number it is moral. This is also referred to as the greatest happiness principle. Happiness being pleasure and the absence of pa...
...ould not want to be the one that is killed and you also can’t not kill because you would want to be one of the two people that are saved. As for Mill his ethics state that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness. It cannot be the same as the Golden Rule because Mill believes that pleasure is better than pain and that one should act in a way that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. However comparing to the Golden Rule treat others as how you would want to be treated – let’s say you like the feeling of pain, you would treat others with pain but Mill says that pleasure is better than pain and pain does not produce happiness. Overall one believes that both Kant and Mill’s ethics do essential relate to the Golden Rule but they cannot be the same as the Golden Rule.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
John Stuart Mill was one of the most influential Western philosopher. At the time, most Western philosophers had the tendency to look down on women. They believed that women are too emotional and are incapable of being rational. However, Mill was an exception to this as he was an advocate for gender equality (Utilitarian Ethics). He is also known for his work in Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequence of an action and whether that action benefit a greater number of people (Utilitarian Ethics).
Cahn, Steven M., and Peter J. Markie. "John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism; Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is." 2009. Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. 4th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. 330-41. Print.
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.
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.