Essay on Compare Mill and Kant’s Ethics

Nietzsche and Mill have explored the theory of ‘morality’ from different perspectives. The two philosophers appear to get along that the notion ‘morality’ has been exploited to a great extent, though a little certainty has been provided on the issue. The two philosophers agree on the complexity of the issue. Mill’s theory of ethics is based on the concept of ‘utility. ' The philosopher provides the meaning of the idea as it has been largely perverted. Nietzsche stipulates that ‘morality’ is not a common notion due to the existence of ‘the masters’ and ‘slaves. ' Thus, ‘morality’ can be regarded from the perspective of the ‘masters, ' and ‘slaves, respectively. ' Both ethical theories have the right to be like each of them contributes to understanding the origins of ‘morality. ' However, in his theory, Nietzsche is trying to explore the human nature beyond good and evil, while Mill simplifies the human nature. Thus, Nietzsche would criticize Mill’s theory.

In a lot of events, to understand them and make a decision whether the situation is right or wrong, one has to look at each individual. Not everyone thinks a like nor share the same virtues and ethics. According to the research and medicine collide in Haiti there are three points of view ill come across. First will be a Utilitarian guiding me about the ethics in this event, then there’s a Kantian helping, and finally ill speak upon this event to depict if there ethics involved.

Kant would definitely not endorse a paternalistic view. Paternalism is deciding for a person for their own good. Kant argues that a lie is “merely an intentionally false declaration towards another man... for it always injures another; if not individual, yet mankind generally (Vaughn 148). In the practice of medicine, there are instances where the truth would be better kept from the patients. However, Kant would not believe in doing this because he believes that we do not have the duty to lie even if it is to prevent harm to others. Patients are entitled to their autonomy and lying to a patient disrespects such ability to make decisions without the input of another person.

The mother-in-law was already receiving medical treatment; therefore, to some extent she might now that she will die soon. Even though she was not capable of retaining information, is possible that she was able to realize this before dying. It is true that everybody has the right to know the truth because denying her this might deprive someone from someone else. In here we are not judging the morality of the act of lying but the benefits and consequences of it. For many people, lying is a wrong act; however, lying is not always immoral if it produces better consequences than telling the truth. For instance, this act can be morally right if the overall result of lying maximize a greatest happiness or pleasure to a greater number of people over

It would be impossible to follow such a rule of not utilizing people as means towards an end, however this formulation is trying to emphasize that all rational beings "must be treated never as a mere means but as the supreme limiting condition in the use of all means…as an end at the same time." Instead of seeing other rational beings as just tools towards a personal goal, we should see the benefit of others and “Humanity” as our end objective, rather than the means. Kant truly introduces the idea of respect in the formulation because it seems genuinely wrong to treat other rational humans as mere means with no other kind of value. One has to recognize, even with the significance of oneself having desires and treating oneself as the end, that what makes me unique as a logical and thinking being also resides in everyone else. Thus we determine that everyone else must also see themselves as ends and my means to my ends are no more significant than another rational being. In the case of the doctor’s moral dilemma, the Formula of Humanity would be the same answer because of various reasons. First, Kant is a firm believer in not being deceitful and thus the doctor should follow the moral action of telling the truth. The formulation also preaches that we should recognize that others are a basis of value by treating their chosen ends as good, and following their happiness as they see it. So in this case, the patient’s

Ethics refers to what people consider good or bad and right or wrong. It is a theory dealing with values that relate to human behaviour; with respect to their actions and purpose. The two most important philosophers that deal with ethics are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Kant’s ethical theory is Kantianism or deontological ethics. Mill’s ethical theory is utilitarianism. Both philosophers’ theories have many differences; Kant’s theory deals with conduct, seeking reason for good action in duty. Mill’s theory deals with consequences and maximizing human happiness. However both Kant and Mill’s ethics relate to the important biblical principal of the Golden Rule.

Utilitarians, in the vein of Mill, would strongly oppose the Kantian refusal to lie due to the consequentialist emphasis of utilitarian moral theory. Instead, they would probably contend that lying as a means of serving the end of protecting one’s friend would result in greater happiness and utility, particularly in this scenario where it would serve the interests of two out of three of the individuals involved. Furthermore, a utilitarian would likely suggest that refusing to lie within this scenario results in a refusal to preserve life and happiness, and thus exemplifies the inhumane consequences of Kant’s moral theory that inadvertently enables evil while

The bioethical issue this item presents is how the doctors should have talked to the family

Mill 's moral approaches are based around Utilitarianism. The purpose of utilitarianism is to maximize happiness and pleasure and minimize pain, therefore, it bases moral choices on their end results. There are two types of utilitarianism- act utilitarianism, which focuses on an individual’s actions and rule utilitarianism, which bases the morality of a decision on whether or not the decision abides by a general moral code.

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.

Another highly acknowledgeable focus of Kantian Ethics includes two imperatives: hypothetical and categorical. Kant would emphasize the importance of the second formulation within the categorical imperative in the instance of Van Den Bleeken using the physician’s as the means to his end. By supplying Van Den Bleeken with the necessary materials and environment for a painless death, the physicians would only be the means to the end. Kant would agree that physician assisted suicide is therefore not follow moral law, because the physicians are considered moral beings and should be entitled to the autonomous treatment as moral equals. Strengths to the Kantian Ethics Theory is that it is fair, consistent, and treats people as moral equals; but contradictorily, what if someone broke the law, are they stripped of their title as a “moral equal”?

When a doctor lies to the patient about his condition that he has consulted with other doctors, this is unethical. when it comes to health issues lying can subject one to harm or even death and therefore openness should be priority so that the client is willing to make decision that thinks best suits him without being forced to make one. By doing this the consequences that a patient might face will not be blamed on the doctor because of the choice the patient

The case of ethical dilemma concerns a fifty-year old woman who was admitted in the hospital complaining of vomiting, indigestion and weight loss signs and symptoms. After conducting barium X-Ray and gastroscopy it was found out by doctors that the patient was suffering from malignant kind of gastric carcinoma and hence further diagnosis and treatment will have to be conducted in relation to the disease the patient was suffering from. Doctors suggested a palliative surgery for reducing stenosis but felt it before time to disclose this information to the patient which was cemented after proper consultation with the patient’s husband who said that her wife would overreact in a situation like this as she had a phobia regarding tumors and cancer diseases.

Primum non nocere; this is the original Latin phrase meaning “Above all, do no harm” (Smith). Providing patients with information about a terminal illness can make one feel pain and give them nothing to set as a goal or look forward to. In ethics, it may not be the moral thing to do, but lying when the benefits outweigh the harmful consequences, it may be immoral not to lie. An example of this is putting a human’s life in danger. “The principle must be understood to mean that the doctor should strive to ensure that his interventions achieve a positive balance of benefit over harm” (Goldie 1). A doctor’s duties involve making the care of a patient their first concern, respect their dignity, and to support them in taking care of themselves to help improve their health. An ill-advised decision that costs a patient their life should compel the doctor or physician to prevent any harm to their health. The majority of people would not want to receive negative details regarding their death, and even less yet, an approaching one because of a disease. One patient said “Those are not proper words to tell to a patient.” after a doctor told him he did not have too long to live (Glick 2). What he considered the right response is something that would cheer him up; reassurance that no one can know how long he would live. If just one person thinks this way, there is a great chance that he is not alone in his disappointment of being told that his days in front of him are limited. Withholding

Mill's Principles in His Work On Liberty John Stuart Mill was born in London in 1806, the son of the philosopher James Mill. James Mill was a close friend of Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism (the theory that states that the right course of action is the course which generates the most happiness). Bentham and James Mill educated J. S. Mill rigorously, to such an extent that he began reading Ancient Greek at age 3. He was reading Plato's Dialogues at age 13 - in their original form. His father trained him in political economy, philosophy, the classics and many other intellectual subject areas.