First Principles and Moral Philosophy In many ways, eighteenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant and nineteenth century philosopher John Stuart Mill represent opposing sides of philosophical theory. While Kant is more concerned with metaphysics and epistemology, Mill explores the consequentialist side of moral philosophy. Though their starting points may seem at odds, we find both men drawing on the concept of a first principle. As Mill puts it, a first principle is an “ultimate standard” to which our morals should be based (Mill 3). This concept is what I wish to explore in this essay; that is to say, not only how one arrives at a first principle, but also how such a starting point influences the maxims and behaviors those who adhere
…show more content…
By universalizing a maxim, one can tell if it is in accordance with the moral law or if it creates some sort of self-contradiction and is therefore not morally acceptable. The process for getting to one’s maxim comes from a thorough analysis of duties and how they relate to the moral law, but for the purposes of this essay all we need to acknowledge is that to behave morally one must be acting from a duty which is in accordance with the moral law (Kant …show more content…
Contrary to the physical sciences, in moral philosophy, truths do not precede the general theory (2). For Mill, this general theory equates to his first principle known as the Greatest Happiness Principle, or GHP. The GHP reads that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (7). In general, this means that if the consequences of an action are happiness/pleasure and absence of pain, it can be considered a moral act, and if the consequences are pain and the absence of pleasure, then the act must be considered immoral. By happiness in this context he means “not the agent’s own happiness, but the greatest happiness altogether” (Mill 11). Mill’s form of utilitarianism saw the happiness of the individual together with the happiness of the group, and in that way minimized confusion related to the base pursuit of only one’s own
By universalizing a maxim, one can tell if it is in accordance with the moral law or if it creates some sort of self-contradiction and is therefore not morally acceptable. The process for getting to one’s maxim comes from a thorough analysis of duties and how they relate to the moral law, but for the purposes of this essay all we need to acknowledge is that to behave morally one must be acting from a duty which is in accordance with the moral law (Kant …show more content…
Contrary to the physical sciences, in moral philosophy, truths do not precede the general theory (2). For Mill, this general theory equates to his first principle known as the Greatest Happiness Principle, or GHP. The GHP reads that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (7). In general, this means that if the consequences of an action are happiness/pleasure and absence of pain, it can be considered a moral act, and if the consequences are pain and the absence of pleasure, then the act must be considered immoral. By happiness in this context he means “not the agent’s own happiness, but the greatest happiness altogether” (Mill 11). Mill’s form of utilitarianism saw the happiness of the individual together with the happiness of the group, and in that way minimized confusion related to the base pursuit of only one’s own