Compare And Contrast Mill And Kant's Theories Of Morality

Morality as used in the context is defined as the principles revolving around the differentiation between wrong and right behavior of the human. As the last thinker of the enlightenment, Kant was a philosopher that believed that reason was the only thing that morality can come from. In contrast Mill was a philosopher who believed that morality is utility, meaning that something is moral only if it brings happiness or pleasure. In looking at both Kant’s text Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals and Mill’s Utilitarianism we see both differences and similarities in Mill’s enlarged sense of justice and Kant’s kingdom of ends. To begin with, Kant’s approach to determining what is moral and what is not and some background on his philosophy is …show more content…
Proven above, we know this is very different than Kant. It is evident that Kant’s ideas solely focused on the intention, but opposite, Mill is more concerned about the outcome. Mill emphasizes the consequences of an action and how the consequence of an action is the justification of morality. If an outcome brings you happiness or the least amount of pain then we are achieving the goal of morality, for Mill. Although many argue that utility does not take play in justice, Mill disagrees. “To recapitulate: the idea of justice supposes two things; a rule of conduct, and a sentiment which sanctions the rule”(Mill, 45). In regards to justice there are two main factors for Mill. The first being equality and the second being punishment. The goal of punishment is to establish order and reorder of social order, and vengeance is an animalistic desire that is natural. Without equality we wouldn’t be able to regard other peoples happiness and therefore justice becomes a concept that is derived from higher-level thinking and vengeance is a mixture of animalistic thinking and abstract thinking. “The sentiment of justice, in that one of its elements which consists of desire to punish is thus, I conceive, the natural feeling of retaliation or vengeance, rendered by intellect and sympathy applicable to those injuries, that is, to those hurts, …show more content…
Both philosophers used a first principle to govern their ideas and both philosophers were interested in universality. Kant using his categorical imperative to universalize all to be ends within themselves, and Mill in considering consequences for all sentient creatures as well as the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. Also, they both took into account duties to others: the rules to not lie, and not deprive others. All in all both Mill and Kant were philosophers that both shared similarities and differences in their ideas of a kingdom of ends, for Kant, and an enlarged sense of Justice, for Mill, and with the above text this is