Essay On Immanuel Kant And John Stuart Mill

Improved Essays
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill demonstrate two contrasting moral theories. The philosophers have very different ideas about ethics and happiness. Immanuel Kant, author of “Duty and Reason”, believed in the morality of the good will and duty. According to Kant, happiness is an emotion unable to be controlled while motive is controllable; therefore, duty is the most important aspect of leading a moral life. Conversely, John Stuart Mill, who wrote, “The Greatest Happiness Principle”, is well known as a utilitarian, who stress the greatest happiness for the greatest amount. While they may have disagreed about what makes an action ethical, Kant and Mill are both extremely significant philosophers. Further acknowledgement of the contrasting …show more content…
He argues that the amount of suffering and happiness is what indicates the morality of an action and thus strongly believes that end results of an action are what help decide a moral action. He claims that an act is good or right insofar as it brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people. By happiness he means pleasure and joy and the lack of pain or suffering. From his point of view, the happiness derived from an action doesn 't even have to be that person 's own. Rather, as long as it makes more people happy than unhappy, it is morally right. It creates an unjust court for the innocent who could be accused by a greater number. The nature of morality of an act for Mill is its consequence which applies only for the greater number. According to Mill, people are still able to be moral even if the moral path doesn 't make them happy because of internal penalty. These rules ensure a person fulfills his or her utilitarian duty, which is ensuring decisions made about actions that cause the least amount of suffering for the fewer amount of people. These penalties are generally demonstrated in a person as guilt or other forms of mentally internal pain. For Mill and utilitarianism, sanctions are inevitable if you don 't abide by the philosophy 's rules. As guilt is often a painful enough reason not to do something, a person does not choose happiness over …show more content…
For instance, a child was drowning and you were passing by, it is generally agreed within society that you are obligated to do whatever you can to save that child. This becomes a moral issue when risk is taken into consideration. Both Kant and Mill agree that if you cannot swim and your attempt to save the child would end in increased suffering, then you are morally obligated to not jump into the water. The morality of the issue comes into play when, hypothetically speaking, you do have the ability to swim and thus, theoretically the ability to save the child but you both end up drowning anyway. Kant believes it 's the intention that dictates morality. He would argue that although your actions may cause more suffering in the end, your intentions were good and that is what mattered. Furthermore, he would support this because it supports his theory of the categorical imperative. Hypothetically, your maxim could be something along the lines of, "If an individual they have the ability to save a life, he or she should at least try because it 's his or her duty." This is a maxim that can be universalized. Additionally, it acknowledges that the drowning child is an end and deserves to be saved. On the other hand, if you were only saving this child because of an advantage then you are treating the child as a means to an end, which

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    This is based on the Utilitarian principle that one should act towards the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This promotes happiness and pleasure while condemning anything that causes pain. Mill believes that the purpose for any person’s actions is to experience pleasure or to avoid pain. Though this ultimate telos for happiness may seem like a good system, there are flaws that do not coincide with human nature. One issue with this theory is that it does not take into consideration that different people have different preferences and ideas of what is pleasurable.…

    • 1510 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior 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
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill used utilitarianism as a basis for ethics and he argued that we already do use utilitarianism as a moral standard. To Mill an action is right if it promotes happiness and it is wrong if it reverse happiness. Kant on the other hand bases his view of ethics on good will rather than the outcomes of happiness. As we read, utilitarianism focuses on outcomes of happiness, here we can concluded that it is based on ends, not on means or intentions. I do not totally agree with this however, a person could intend something bad and wrong but in the end, end up causing great happiness.…

    • 1351 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved 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
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to Kant being filled with happiness and having the characteristic on being good are two different things. “Happiness can even be reduced to less than nothing”, but an achievement happiness is always conditioned. “Kant claims that a good will is an ultimate, unconditional good. Unconditional good is a good no matter how it was a achieved in a right way or wrong way, when to a ultimate good, is basically pleasure; is good regardless however the good was achieved. Kant believes that the action of duty has moral worth and if we were to avoid the doubt and have the lack of belief of our ethics, it must be rational based, unconditional.…

    • 864 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Rather, he values the importance of success, which ultimately leads to goodness. If a leader were to rely solely on his morals, his mind would be clouded with unreasonable and unattainable duties. Learning to set morality to the side allows for the liberation of mind and action while ridding one’s thought of virtuous restrictions. When deception acts as a mediator between virtuous behavior and rational thought, one learns that the only “good” that matters is a derived form of…

    • 1948 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The second formulation is the ‘Principle of Ends not Means’, it works on the basis that all people are equal and therefore it is wrong to exploit others or use them for personal benefits. This formulation shows how Kant had a respect for the value of humans, which is obviously important for an ethical theory; Kant believed that all people were an end in themselves. It also displays the importance of intention. You shouldn’t carry out an act that you know will treat someone as just a means, even if it benefits a greater good (contrast to utilitarianism). Kant thought that through helping others gain happiness (not treating them as just means) we also developed our own moral perfection- this also links in with Kant’s desire for a better society overall.…

    • 1607 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Morally good act are consequence in the fulfillment of happiness in people. Both philosopher are appealing to a consequence of the first principle and to the end of duties, Kant considers the consequence of maxim becoming a universal law of nature, and Mill consequence of his principle is a certain kind of action (ex, lying). In also pursuing happiness in the absence of pain. All human should be good in doing the right thing act in accordance to the maxim and in such way to produce the greatest amount of happiness for everyone affected by our acts in accordance to virtue by treating people like their…

    • 992 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This makes one self-motivating, good and consistent in the society with themselves and others. Justice becomes the sole front of internal harmony and good in a society. The origin and nature of justice is an arrangement that one comes to and is only valuable as it keeps a certain kind of order, predictability and safety. Plato claims that anyone who embraces justice is better off in times of despair and misfortune. He asserts that it is more advantageous for one to be just than unjust because that affects the human soul.…

    • 1295 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He believes that this shows respect for the state of being human in itself as the actors thought of the most humane way to solve the problem, with the least horrible outcome. However, having sourced out all the available information, one could make the informed choice of action, not for anyone’s humanity, but simply for the total level of happiness to be higher. Disregarding the rule to conform to original objective of the happiness of all involved, eliminates that view that the rules would be based off the intrinsic value of a person and demonstrates that utilitarianism will ignore any dignity that people have from being…

    • 1164 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics