During the 18th century and beyond, there was a lot of discussion over many topics in the world and one of those topics so happened to be about morality. Morality is the distinction of knowing what is right and wrong and good or bad behavior. This subject matter can be a plain black and white outline or there can be a gray area. This is discussed by two philosophers; Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Both have different ideas about morality, but with these differences, there are similarities hidden within their thoughts and opinions. Kant believes that morality and duty go hand in hand. In a more logical way of explaining this, he believes that people should do good things for each other because they are acting with a good will. When people act according to principle, that is true morality, not thinking about the consequences of their actions whenever the consequences are good or bad. When people think about the action they are doing, then they fail to have a driving force of duty, in return, they fail to have a good sense of moral.
Mill on the
…show more content…
Although they have separate opinions, there are similarities in them. Both Kant and Mill agree that each action leads to a right and wrong moral ground without any in between. They do have different ideas about this subject matter, but with their two separate theories and ideas, it concludes that there is a cut and dry method of morality. Along with having an understanding about the existence of a right and wrong moral ground, Kant and Mill agree that there is a driving force with mortality. There is some type of force that urges people to do what is right in the world. The driving forces are different, of course; Kant believes that it is the sense of duty that has people do the right thing without thinking about the consequences while Mill argues that it is happiness and people’s desire to be happy is the driving
Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.
Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different
Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.
Explain in your own words the logic of Mill’s argument, and critically discuss whether happiness should be the criterion of morality.
When presented with a choice between saving the life of one person, or saving the life of five, how should you choose which is the right thing to do? Is there even a right choice in this situation when either way someone is going to die? The theories presented by Kant and Mill seem to suggest there is. They each have their own beliefs on how you should handle the situation, and which is in fact the right choice to make. Kant’s deontological theory rests in the basis of morality. Mill’s utilitarianism theory rests in the basis of maximized happiness. So, how would they handle this situation? In the end, which is the right choice to make?
Kant has a moral view based on religious principals while Mill’s is based on a hedonist approach. Mill stated that the good or evil of an action depends on the affect. That the greatest action is the one that provides the most pleasure for the greatest number of people. Kant, however, would state the goodness of an action depends on the intentions behind it. When an action depends on the intentions behind it.
Emmanuel Kant has three propositions of morality. One of the propositions is that in order to have moral worth, an action must be from a moral duty. The second proposition is that “action whether the action is in accord with duty has been done from duty or from some selfish purpose is easy”(Cahn 76). The third proposition is that “action accord with duty and the subject has in addition an immediate inclination to do the action”(Cahn 76). Each one of the propositions has a different distinct and they are connected to morality. There are several actions that can be done out of duty, while others can be done out of desire. Each one of these two are used to determine if it’s done in a moral way. Kant gives two examples, one example is about a self-interested shopkeeper and the other is a reluctant benefactor. In the self-interested shop keeper, the dealer is focused on having fixed prices for everyone. He needs the customers to keep coming
Hume and Kant offered two differing views on morality. Hume's philosophy regarding moral theory came from the belief that reason alone can never cause action. Desire or thoughts cause action. Because reason alone can never cause action, morality is rooted in us and our perception of the world and what we want to gain from it. Virtue arises from acting on a desire to help others. Hume's moral theory is therefore a virtue-centered morality rather than the natural-law morality, which saw morality as coming from God. Kant's notion of morality stems from his notion of one universal moral law. This law is pertinent to all people and can be used at all times before carrying our actions According to Kant, you ought to act according to the maxim
Mill says that it is impossible not to consider the consequences in moral reasoning. What Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill can both agree on is that there are fundamental moral principles at play. They both appeal to rationality to evaluate morality, in the sense that they reason from a fundamental principle about what is morally right or wrong. They also both recognize the existing of a "moral sense", although neither regards it as the basis of morality, and they both extend the scope of moral agency (who has moral responsibilities) to all rational beings, although Mill does not specifically refer to any beings other than humans as moral
In regards to morality, Mill anchors its definition on the premises of the greatest happiness principle stated above. Unlike Aristotle who puts emphasis on the agent (the person themselves) in regards to acting morally, Mill is very indifferent and states that the character of the person and their motives do not matter only the consequence of those actions matter. For Mill, the morality of the action only depends on whether that action will produce pleasure for greatest number of people. As state before, he explains that pleasure leads to happiness, and happiness is the ultimate goal of each individual. However, morality is “the rules and precepts for human conduct,” and not simply the causes of human behavior. Desire may drive human actions, but that doesn’t mean that desire should propel human actions. Morality is the ideal, not the reality.
The aim of this paper is to clearly depict how John Stuart Mill’s belief to do good for all is more appropriate for our society than Immanuel Kant’s principle that it is better to do what's morally just. I will explain why Mill’s theory served as a better guide to moral behavior and differentiate between the rights and responsibilities of human beings to themselves and society.
I will be explaining John Stuart Mill’s view on ethics. This includes explaining the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, happiness, unhappiness, quality of pleasure, lying, and the relevance of time with his view. I will then explain how I agree with the principle of Rule Utilitarianism. I will also consider the objection of conflicting rules in Rule Utilitarianism as well as that of negative responsibility, giving my response to each.
Duty for Kant is the underlying role of morality. Our duty and intentions combine to form our will, and the only one thing in the world that is good is a good will. To act according to duty means we are acting according to principals, not according to the final outcome of our actions. Principals is another important factor in this theory, our actions must be congruent with principals that can be made universal. To be universal, the maxim must apply to absolutely everyone, everywhere, and anytime. Another stipulation in Kant’s theory is that we should never treat a person solely as a means to our own ends. It is morally wrong to use someone solely to enhance our own self-interest.
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.
Immanuel Kant is one of the most influential personalities in the philosophical world. Kant was able to leave a landmark through his various philosophical works that have raised controversy primarily based on how they articulate social issues. Kant's social theories especially the ethical and moral theories have been major points of discussion amongst the scholars in the field of art (notably sociology and psychology). The scholars have been expressing divergent views and deduction on analysis of Kant's theories with some agreeing with the philosopher while others were expressing their contestation of the theories. However, it is inarguable that the Moral theory