3. How does Kant’s deontology compare to Mill’s utilitarianism? What are the main differences? In particular, what is Kant’s view of happiness (pleasure) and duty? What would a Kantian society look like, morally? How would its inhabitants behave? Would it be very different from ours? Which is morally superior?
The concept of happiness is understood by Kant in a different way than Mill does. According to John Stuart Mill happiness is " a pleasure and the absent of pain" (195.)Positive happiness defines For J. Kant def happiness is not good for itself and it is not the ultimate goal for a person. The wealth is not going to satisfy the greedy and egoistic person, because he is going to be worrying abut valuables all his life. The only thing that is truly valuable and without any restrictions is Good will. Having it is the only condition for other actions and things to provide happiness. …show more content…
We can not say that he had a bad will. Even if the Good Will remains, it is realized only in the rule according to which action is taken, but it does not depend on the consequences or even on the nature of the action itself. The purpose of reason is not the happiness of man, because if God or nature acts deliberately, then it would create an instinct for achieving happiness, which would work much better than reason. This is evidenced by the fact that many intelligent people who are able to use the gains of civilization and culture discover that they are not happy. The purpose of reason must be to produce another good, namely, good will. Good will is associated with the concept of duty. Kant shifted form Mills point of view about happiness - he believed that the most
The concept of happiness is understood by Kant in a different way than Mill does. According to John Stuart Mill happiness is " a pleasure and the absent of pain" (195.)Positive happiness defines For J. Kant def happiness is not good for itself and it is not the ultimate goal for a person. The wealth is not going to satisfy the greedy and egoistic person, because he is going to be worrying abut valuables all his life. The only thing that is truly valuable and without any restrictions is Good will. Having it is the only condition for other actions and things to provide happiness. …show more content…
We can not say that he had a bad will. Even if the Good Will remains, it is realized only in the rule according to which action is taken, but it does not depend on the consequences or even on the nature of the action itself. The purpose of reason is not the happiness of man, because if God or nature acts deliberately, then it would create an instinct for achieving happiness, which would work much better than reason. This is evidenced by the fact that many intelligent people who are able to use the gains of civilization and culture discover that they are not happy. The purpose of reason must be to produce another good, namely, good will. Good will is associated with the concept of duty. Kant shifted form Mills point of view about happiness - he believed that the most