Kant And Utilitarianism Analysis

Improved Essays
Kant’s Groundworks of the Metaphysics of Morals, and Mill’s Utilitarianism, each offer different arguments about what is morality. They both give us fundamental and universal theories about morality. Before we compare the two, let’s first start with a summary of the main arguments of each philosopher. Mill begins chapter one by setting the stage for what he is going to discuss. Philosophers have discussed the foundation of morality for more than two thousand years. (Mill 95). He mentions how it is common to have some confusion and uncertainty in areas like the sciences. He also mentions how in the sciences there are the first principles that are the basic start for all learning in the sciences. These principles are always held true in the …show more content…
Kant starts right off by talking about the only thing that can be considered good without limitations is that of a good will. He describes how the things that bring forth happiness can also cause arrogance unless a good will is present (4:393). He talks about how moderation in affects and passions, as well as self-control and calm reflection are not only good for all purposes, but they even effect the inner worth of a person. Kant believes without the basic principles of good will they can become evil (4:394). He tells us how a good will is good do only its volition, meaning it itself is good. Next, he brings in the concept of the will, a will that is good is not a means to other purposes, but good in itself. A good will must be the sole and complete good and the highest good we seek in happiness. Kant tells us that a good will should be sound in understanding that it does not need to be taught but rather only clarified (4:397). Kant has three major propositions about duty. He explains duty as well as something done from an inclination. He explains how to tell if something is done from duty or from a self-seeking purpose. Actions can be seen as good when they are done for duty only not inclination. The second proposition, he brings up how actions are not to just be attained, but in the maxim that is the reason for the action. The third proposition which Kant mentions is a consequence of the other two. This …show more content…
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. Kant is practically the opposite on this point. Kant like mentioned above believes that an action is only good if it in itself is good. He believes in order to be good it cannot be based on the consequences of its actions. Kant takes into account what happens before an action to determine if it is good, where Mill focuses on the ends. I side here with Kant for he is able to better defend his theory and keeps it related to what we humans are able to do in regard to our duties not

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    It involves assessing what the people perceive to be moral and taking actions which will produce insignificant consequences on the people other than the individual performing the act. REGARDING EITHER THEORIST 6. As provided by Kant on his ethical theory, the standard of living an ethical life entails carrying out the logical reasoning behind the actions which are perceived to be moral. Kant argued that it is not a matter of following what the norm have stated to be moral but rather questioning the reason behind taking certain actions (Ross 37). Mill on the other hand in his utilitarian ethical theory based standards of living an ethical life on the ability of one to achieve maximum happiness from the…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The only genuinely good actions are the actions done exclusively out of respect for the moral rules. Kantian theory is an example of a deontological theory, meaning that the rightfulness or wrongfulness of actions does not depend on the results of the action, but instead, depends on the motives behind the action itself. This deontological approach relates to the supreme principle of morality that Kant referred to as the ‘Categorical…

    • 905 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
  • Improved Essays

    Thomas Aquinas’, and some that differ. In Kant’s Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals, also talks about good will and happiness. As opposed to Aquinas, however, he believes that instinct is better used to attain happiness. According to Kant, without a good will one cannot even be worthy of happiness. What makes the good will is its efficacy in accomplishing some intended end.…

    • 710 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This being said, I feel as though the outcome of an action does affect its ‘goodness’ even if unknown- consequences shouldn’t be overlooked, therefore I disagree with Kant. Kant (1724-1804) believed that the instructions/moral code we live by should be categorical imperatives not hypothetical…

    • 1607 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Rationality meaning one 's judge of values and one 's guide to action.“Settle, for sure and universally, what conduct will promote the happiness of a rational being.”( Kant) Kant first starts by arguing that we are indeed responsible for what we do. The actions that we take are not just a set of events that we have no control over. Other philosophers believe that they are just another set of events that are determined by the things we cannot control. He also bases morality as a matter of duty that is common sense. Whether we feel against or not we know the morally right thing and it’s our duty to care out our action.…

    • 881 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Mill Utilitarianism

    • 1393 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The only thing in the world that is absolutely good is the idea of good will, such as the qualities of good fortune or qualities of spirit may be used for good or bad purposes in a person’s life. By contrast, a good will is essentially ‘good’, even if it may fail to bring about positive results. According to Kant, “whenever you act for a reason […], the reason must be necessitate your act if it is to motivate and explain your act” (Yount, Kant, Conscience, and Duty). In this situation, Kant would ask Jim what his motivating principle might be and is he doing this for ‘good’? The main purposes of each individual are assumed to be the fulfillment of happiness and self-preservation.…

    • 1393 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    To answer this, Silber points out that in the Kantian kingdom agents are all good-natured and well-behaved. We may then, appropriately ask: Are these characteristics additional premises or simply the result of agents acting under the moral law? Only the latter would be true to Kant’s ethics. I think Silber’s interpretation is essentially close to Kant’s perspective in so far as maxims derive from moral propriety such as self-preservation or security, rather than moral goodness. As I will precisely discuss this in section of Silber’s procedurlism(2.1.1), I argue although Silber has defended Kant’s ethics against the charge of consequentialism to some degree, he has not done so in an essential way.…

    • 1235 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • 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
  • Improved Essays

    Kant states that duty is purely good will. This begs the question, does pure good will conform to duty? Conformity with duty but not from good will illustrates the doubt of goodwill. Proving that duties do not always come from good will. Kant supports this by comparing motivation through duty with other motives, particularly with the motive of self-gain.…

    • 863 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics