Kant’s main idea is that the thought behind your actions is what determines if it’s wrong or right, not the outcome, he uses categorical imperative. So, the moral of your action is judged by the principal that provokes the action, not the outcome as I stated above. He calls these principles “maxim”. He says “the only acceptable maxim are those that can be defined as a universal law, because it is without exception” (pg.98). He uses an example of his view of morality of suicide.…
Just like Rand’s Equality trying to rediscover individuality, John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty argues about the individuality of mankind. Near the beginning of the book, Mill states his thesis of Individuals having the right to thought. He continues, arguing that the right of thought is not unique to one person nor another in…
When he [Kant] begins to deduce from this precept [i.e. CI] any of the actual duties of morality, he fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur. Here Mill considers of consequences in moral action, as we will see, Mill’s consequentialism rather than Utilitarianism is the direct charge made to Kant, these two notions are not same, the utiitlirms principle is seek happiness and avoid pain, precisely moral action would be conducted on maximizing happiness and minimizing…
In John Stuart Mill’s influential book “Utilitarianism”, Mill introduces the belief that moral action is based upon the concept of utility, or how he explains it, the greatest happiness principle. It is this greatest happiness principle that defines Utilitarianism as the notion that the best moral actions are those that promote the most amount of human happiness. Actions that would be regarded as the least favorable are those that promote the opposite, unhappiness. The concept of Utilitarianism and that of Consequentialism are similar as both judge the moral value of an action dependent on its consequences, however each claim leads to different conclusions.…
What is Utilitarianism? Utilitarianism is a philosophical concept that holds an action to be held right if it tends to promote happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarian’s define the morally right actions as those actions that maximize happiness and minimize misery. Many believe that utilitarianism is an unrealistic theory. Arguments and responses to utilitarianism being too demanding have been made John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer.…
This would further suggest that when following Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism, right or wrong is more so accidental and depends on the world instead of depending on an individual's awareness of the situation. If the student were to follow Kant’s advice, then they must follow along with their duties as a student while also performing through a maxim which they could will to be universalized. In this case the student must study for…
Mill expresses the specifics of his views in his literary work titled Utilitarianism. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism measures the goodness of actions…
Through Mill’s view on Utilitarianism there emerges a core moral theory called the greatest happiness principle. However, I believe that Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle is false. I believe this because after examining his theory I noticed several flaws within his theory. Before I say what is wrong with Mill’s argument and theory I want to address the definition of the greatest happiness principle and what all it encompasses. Mill believes that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, [and] wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill,97).…
In other words, if an individual rejects or contradicts the ideas expressed by the community, the community should be able to force that individual to submit to their opinions. It is at this point in which Rousseau and Mill differ. This act of forcing conformity would be seen as a form of tyranny to Mill who values the freedom of the individual. In order for society to progress, individual freedoms must always be expressed foremost. Indeed, Mill agrees that man should not behave in ways that would harm others but they should still be free to do as they wish.…
Mill’s work goes into depth on how much liberty should be granted to the individual and to what extent the government should be able to intervene with these liberties for the betterment of society. I agree with Mill on what the basic tenets for his argument on freedom of speech are (i.e. truth, utility, social progress). I also accept that the justification of freedom of speech as that which can bring about such things as truth and social progress. He provides a clear explanation for society as to why it is important to allow others to state their opinions and not infringe upon the free speech of others. It seems clear that acting in accordance to this precept will lead to the overall betterment of society.…
In efforts to find summum bonum or the ultimate good, philosophers during the 20th century began to investigate ethical issues, and tried to create their own versions of an ideal moral code. During this time, John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer base their ethical beliefs in the philosophy of utilitarianism. Both Mill’s essay Utilitarianism and Singer’s work Famine, Affluence and Morality explore the pursuit of happiness and its relation to moral philosophy. The doctrine of utilitarianism emphasizes the consequences of one’s actions as they add to the sum total of happiness.…
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.…
It makes utilitarianism theory look like consequentialist. This causes Mill lacking attention on intentions behind actions. He believes that motivation of actions is insignificant for judging one’s morality. Results are more important and critical in Mill’s theory. And here the issue I have comes, how are people supposed to know what results their every action would cause before they do it?…
English philosopher, political economist, and liberal John Stuart Mill published one of his most famous works in 1859: On Liberty. Mill explores the innate and given liberties of people, analyzing what is the extent in which society or government has valid reasons to exercise power over its people. He argues that the individual should not be under the jurisdiction of society or government if their actions are not harming anyone but themselves. The only time society or government should involve themselves and exert power over citizens is if the actions of the individual are harming others within the society.…
Mill believes that ethics are measured based on the consequences of individual deeds and also in consequentialism, or utilitarianism, which is the doctrine that decides what actions are right and if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. Utilitarianism never really relies on ill-defined instinct or intellectual principles, but it allows philosophers as well as psychologists to determine what makes people happy and which policies promote the social “good”. In order for Utilitarianism to work appropriately, the interests of each individual is required and each individual 's interest must be thought of equally. Mill uses the “Quantity/Quality” distinction to be able to tell which pleasure is most desired. For example, Qualitative pleasure in a small amount are more important than a Quantitative pleasure in a larger amount and a small qualitative issue is more important than a large quantitative issue.…