Kant's All Acceptable Maxim Analysis

Kant’s main idea is that the thought behind your actions is what determines if it’s wrong or right, not the outcome, he uses categorical imperative. So, the moral of your action is judged by the principal that provokes the action, not the outcome as I stated above. He calls these principles “maxim”. He says “the only acceptable maxim are those that can be defined as a universal law, because it is without exception” (pg.98). He uses an example of his view of morality of suicide. If a man’s maxim is “out of self-love” he’s in despair to end his life, he would have to determine if this is right or wrong. Kant states “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person, or in any other person, always at the same times an end, rather than a means” (pg.107). So, this act would go against natural law because by harming himself means harming a human.
Mill focuses on happiness. He explains when making a decision the outcome should purely bring happiness. Mill states that we all usually do what makes us happy anyway so, we have personal standards on what is right and wrong.
Aristotle says one should do good at all times. He states doing well does not come from nature it is something that is learned. Aristotle says if you do something over and over again it …show more content…
No matter what when making decisions you should be happy. For example, marriage. If you and spouse are wanting a divorce but you have children together, and you want to stay together to make them happy. This would be wrong because you are not happy, and you not being happy will not make a happy home. In this situation you do what you think is best and which will bring you satisfaction. Unfortunately this theory sometimes means hurting someone else, but if it’s for your personal growth and a good state of mind it is all worth it in the end. Some will say this is selfish, but I think it’s okay to be selfish when it comes to ones