The Philosophies Of John Stwet Mill And Immanuel Kant

Good Essays
John Stwet Mill and Immanuel Kant are two of the most influential philosophers in history. Their schools of philosophies utilitarianism and deontology, respectively, have fundamentally different priorities and values.
Utilitarianism believes that the fundamental principle that all people should follow is the promotion of happiness and pleasure, since actions are morally correct in proportion to how much happiness they create. Happiness, Mill states, is the end objective of all human actions, after all. We choose and prefer one action over another based on the amount of happiness it will yield. There are differences in the quality and quantity of happiness, and those change depending on person to person. Happiness with more quality is usually
…show more content…
One of the most famous philosophical problems, the trolley problem, is the perfect way to demonstrate their differences. In the trolley problem, a trolley car is on track to run over five people, but a man could change the track it’s on to only run over one person. For Mill the answer is plain; change tracks and run over only one person, since the amount of pain caused by the loss of one life would be less than the pain of the loss of five. He objectively makes this decision based off of what yields the most happiness, or in this case, what causes the least amount of pain, for society as a whole. Kant would have the exact opposite answer, not because he wishes to kill more people, but because it would be using the other person as a mere means to save the other five people. Another famous philosophical dilemma is commonly called “The Murder at the Door”. The issue is a murder comes to a person’s door and asks when their best friend is, with the intent of murdering that best friend. For Utilitarians, this really would not even be considered a dilemma, the person should lie to save their friend. For Kantians, however, the situation is trickier. Since most people would agree that telling the truth is the morally correct thing to do, it is logical to assume that it could feasibly be put into the categorical imperative and …show more content…
It gives a guideline to determining what is good, and while that guideline is subjective, it is there. Kant assumes that people have an understanding of what is good in society, and that people will make choices using the principles of universal law to make choices that would morally permissible for all of society to make. However, people have a widely differencing ideas of what is good for society. One person a might generally believe that the best way to get rid of poverty is to steal all the money they can burn it, because without money there is no poverty. Obviously, society needs money to function as it is, and burning money would only make the people whose money was stolen poorer. So, there is a negative effect, but Kant would support this man for his good intentions. This man would probably also believe his principle of burning money is a contender for the categorical imperative, but others would not believe that to be so. Should we allow him to burn money just because he has good intentions. No, because as a society, money is valued and believe it should not be needlessly burned. What the man did is morally permissible under Kant’s framework, because the man wholeheartedly believed what he was doing was the right thing to do and that that is what society as a whole should be doing. The assumption that all people have a solid, identical understand of what is beneficial for society is

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    John Stewart Mill and Immanuel Kant are two of the most influential philosophers in history. Their philosophies of utilitarianism and deontology, respectively, have different fundamental values and priorities. The fundamental principle of utilitarianism is that actions are morally correct in proportion to how much happiness they create, henceforth all people should strive to promote happiness and pleasure. Happiness, Mill states, is the ultimate objective of all human actions; one shall prefer those actions which yield the most happiness. There exists variation in both the qualities and quantities of happiness.…

    • 1645 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    You would benefit from the money, right? Kant’s good will theory would say that the money should be turned in because it is your moral duty to do so whether you like doing it or not. If we look at Kant’s categorical imperative principle of autonomy we see that it is our moral duty to return the money because if we do not we are acting without reason thus breaking the chain of moral law (Burnor & Raley, 2013 pg.162). We could also look at Kant’s principle of universal law and see that in this situation there would be inconsistency therefore making picking up the money morally wrong. Kant’s theory could criticize ethical egoism on many different points however the most obvious is that keeping the money would not be morally correct just solely based off the idea that is creates utility for the person that found it.…

    • 1310 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Utilitarian Vs Mill

    • 2422 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Utilitarians argue that the most important principle is the “greatest happiness principle”, or utility. It states that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness” or “wrong as they intend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 10). For the utilitarian, the action that helps them gain feelings of happiness are right, and those that take away from it are considered to be wrong or hurtful. Happiness, for Mill and other utilitarians is the presence of intended pleasure and the absence of anything that causes pain. An individual would be considered happy if they are doing something that they enjoy, such as taking a walk or creating artwork.…

    • 2422 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The assumption is that if we follow a set of rules that give us the best consequences our actions will result in the greater good for everyone around us. Some strengths of utilitarianism include the importance of happiness, consideration of the greater good, and relevance of intention. Meanwhile, Some disadvantages of utilitarianism are that it is not the only thing of value and the end doesn't justify the means. Mill and Kant have opposite views points, Kant thinks people can decide what is moral through reason alone and Mill thinks that through experience people can determine what is good or evil based on pleasure and…

    • 901 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The trolley driver decides to kill one instead of five and many believe his decision was morally permissible based on the fact that killing more is worse. In the Transplant case, the doctor has the choice between killing one and letting five die. He chooses to kill the one, the same as the trolley driver, but in his case the killing is seen as morally impermissible. Even though the net worth of lives saved would be much greater if he killed the one, based on our proposal, killing is worse than letting die, his decision would still be declared wrong by many people. The proposal that killing is worse than letting die explains why people react differently to the decisions that the trolley driver and doctor make even though they are very similar because they both choose to intervene and save five people.…

    • 751 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He believed every human had a sense of worth, and therefore had a privilege to equal rights. Through Kant’s theory, humans have the ability to choose what makes them happy, as long as it is chosen with reason. Some cons of Kant’s theory are that he believes human’s “good will” is always intrinsically good. This is not realistic since all people have different views and opinions. This being said, we may perform different actions based upon what we believe is our “good will”.…

    • 1637 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Without the idea of being socially "correct" would cause a collapse in social acceptance. To one, from their perspective, being greedy is "the right thing to do" because it makes them feel good, even though to the rest of the universal group it is frowned upon; which causes the pack to turn. "Every other rational being thinks of his existence by means of the same rational ground which holds also for myself; thus it is at the same time an objective principle from which, as a supreme practical ground, it must be possible to derive all laws of the will." (Ibid.,…

    • 1398 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In accordance with Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, I will argue that ethical actions should be judged by good will alone. By comparing the theories of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, I will conclude that Kant’s theories are more realistic in regards to the nature of humans. Immanuel Kant argues that one’s good intentions should be the deciding factor in judging their actions no matter the outcome. What is beneficial about this is that it allows for the expression of the intrinsic values of a person. Since every person has different virtues and opinions, they can act in any way they choose.…

    • 1510 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Utilitarianism is the most well-known consequentialist theory which are theories that hold the idea that actions are right or right according to the balance of their good and bad consequences (354). Utilitarianism states that we are morally obligated to act in ways that bring the best consequences. Following that idea you become morally responsible for all the actions that you did not do, but could have in order to maximize happiness, all the actions you performed in which you prevented others from doing that decrease overall happiness as well as what actions you ideally perform to maximize happiness. For all of the reasons above the Utilitarian theory is too demanding of an individual. With utilitarianism, one is always supposed to be thinking…

    • 1281 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In Kantian ethics the basis of morality is solely rational. It’s solely rational for an individual to act in a way that they would want everyone else in the world to act. The universal law principle of Kant’s follows the belief that an action is ethically good when the reasoning behind it is that an individual performs the action because it's something they wouldn’t mind becoming an universal law that everyone does. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Kant would state that the action to aid the injured is only good if the action sprung from the simple desire to do good. Since the Good Samaritan wasn’t acting under the expectation for money in return, but only to help the injured man his action was ethically good.…

    • 1348 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics