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. Opposing Kant,
Mill suggests that goodwill does not have the power to be key element
by itself. He suggests that in order for action to be moral, that
action must be followed with consequences that cause happiness.
Following are the few basic arguments of both philosophers.
Let's start with an example discussed in class. Pretend you are a
shopkeeper. If you lower your prices to get more customers, this would
not have anything to do with goodwill; thus this action would not be a
moral one. Yet, if you lower your prices because it is your duty to
serve your customers to the best of your ability and therefore, it is
your duty to lower prices, then this action would arise from goodwill
making it a moral one. For Kant, an action is good if that action
causes pleasure; yet an action is right if it is moral even if it
causes pain (main incentive is nothing but pure goodwill). Therefore,
Kant suggests that the right is independent of the good. This was the
Kantian viewpoint. Mill would suggest that both of the cases include
moral actions. Since the shopkeeper reduces his/her prices,...
... middle of paper ...
... the concept of pain in his
theory as well. In view of the fact that happiness differs from person
to person, the moral theories not based on empirical means-such as
Kant's-is captive to fail, Mill suggests.
It is clear that Kant and Mill opposes in their main ideas of moral
theory. If they contradict this much in the beginning then they would
have to oppose each other more when they start building up their
theories. Most of the ideas and theories they provide are either
conflicting or exactly the opposite. But because they lived during the
same time, one cannot say whether Kant opposed Mill or vice versa. All
in all, these two modern philosophers grew their agreements' stronger
by attacking each others' and this caused them to have their
footprints on two different moral theories: Utilitarianism, and
Deontology.
Another motive for action is when something is done in accordance to duty, and actually wants to do it – this is also called immediate inclination. An example of this principle would be a man who is happily married. However, at the office, there is an attractive new intern that constantly hits on him. He does find the intern to be physically attractive but does not actually desire to be with her. He reflects that he could indeed have an affair with this intern if he wanted to but he wont in a million years because he is extremely happy with his wife. He wouldn’t risk that relationship for a chance at a fling. According to Kant, this would not have moral worth because it comes from immediate inclination, not from the motive of duty.
In order for the insistence that equity and impartiality to hold true to Mill's Utility, we must find a foundation from within his argumentation that will support it. Thus we turn to Mill's sanctions, or incentives that he proposes to drive one towards the path of Utility. Mill's first sanction, the internal sanction, leads one to act ethically because of the fear of displeasure that might arise from other people if one does not act in this manner. Mill justifies that individuals desire the warmness of others as an incentive to acting unselfishly in the attempt to acquire the greatest good, and fear the dissatisfaction of others. Mill's second sanction, the internal sanction, is in essence an individual's inner conscience. With the assumption that the conscience is pure and free from corruption, Mill implies that satisfaction is brought forth to the conscience when one successfully and ethically commits to one's duties, the duty of Utility. What is undesired is the feeling of dissatisfaction that spawns when one does not act dutifully. In order for this rationale to make sense, one must do what is almost unavoid...
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.
Happiness. People go to any means by which to obtain the many varied materials and issues
Whilst discussing the basics of moral philosophy, every philosopher will undoubtedly come across the works of Immanuel Kant and David Hume. As they progress into the thoughts of these two famous philosophers they will notice the stark contrast between the pair. Quite simply put, Kant’s works emphasizes that reason is the main source of human being’s morality, while Hume’s work depicts human desire as the driving source of morality. Obviously these two points of view are very different, but it is difficult to say which of these philosophers are more correct than the other.
John Stuart Mill (1808-73) believed in an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. There are many formulation of this theory. One such is, "Everyone should act in such a way to bring the largest possibly balance of good over evil for everyone involved." However, good is a relative term. What is good? Utilitarians disagreed on this subject.
John Stuart Mill famously criticized Immanuel Kant and his theory of the Categorical Imperative by arguing that,
Being free is possible by factors surrounding ones’ intentions. There are those that believe it possible to be free by perspective, voice, or thinking. Approaching the discussion of what freedom is best is in the hands of the pursuer. Immanuel Kant freedom of self differs from Martin Luther’s freedom for faith, but both come together as a way of improvement for mankind.
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.
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...
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill, 2002, pg.14) John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher of the 19th century, and said to be one of the most influential thinkers in the areas regarding social theory, political theory, and political economy had strong views regarding free speech. In his following quote, he states that if all mankind had an opinion or an action, and another individual had a different opinion, mankind would not be justified in silencing that one individual just like that one individual, if given the power to do so, would not be justified in silencing all of mankind. Mill’s argument is that every individual has value, meaning, and power within their opinions and that we should not be the ones to stop them from having the right to state their opinion. Their actions and who they are as a person should not be silenced. In the spirit of the greater good of mankind and freedom of expression, one must have the right to liberty and free expression without being silenced and the right to one’s own freedom.
Capital punishment is most commonly known as the death penalty or punishment by death for a crime. It is a highly controversial topic and many people and great thinkers alike have debated about it. Two well-known figures are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Although both stand in favor of capital punishment, their reasons for coming to this conclusion are completely different. I personally stand against capital punishment, but my own personal view on it incorporates a few mixed elements from both individuals as well as my own personal insight. Firstly, in order to understand why Kant and Mill support capital punishment, we must first understand their views on punishment in general.
I also agree with Locke’s argument that if the contract has been violated by the ruler, then it is the role of the citizens to take up arms against that government. Kant emphasizes the importance of duty and argues that, “even if the power of the state or its agent, the head of the state, has violated the original contract […] the subject is still not entitled to offer counter resistance”(81). In What is Enlightenment ?, however, Kant explains that, “the duty of all men [is] to think for themselves”(55). Kant acknowledges the importance of questioning and forming judgements about the government, but condemns turning thoughts into actions. Kant explicitly states that, “it would be permissible to pass general and public judgements upon them,
...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.
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.