The theories of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant are well known for their viewpoints of moral law. In this paper I will discuss the great differences between the two theories of both philosophers as well as review some of the main objections and rebuttals to their arguments. Further, I aim to prove that although the Utilitarian theory is often recognized as the ‘Happiness Theory’, it in fact allows for the sacrifice of some peoples’ happiness for the sake of maximizing the aggregate happiness in a society. I also propose that the Kantian theory of rationalism considers all beings equally, thus allowing for the most fairness of the two moral laws.
I. Utilitarian or Happiness Theory
John Stuart Mill is well known for his Utilitarian ethics …show more content…
To Kant, aggregate happiness is not the objective of moral law. In fact, Kant’s moral theories do not define what we want to achieve, but rather constrain the form of our maxims. Onora O’Neil defines a maxim in regards to Kant’s text as: “The maxim of the act is the principle in which one sees oneself as acting. A maxim expresses a person’s policy, or if he or she has no settled policy, the principle underlying the particular intention” (103). Kant argues that ‘goodness’ is not pursued through happiness. Instead, he proposes that the only good thing in this world is a “good will” (81). A good will requires a maxim of motive in which you do the right thing for duties sake, and not for any other intended maxim (82). “A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by the virtue of the volition- that is, it is good in itself…” …show more content…
For purposes of this argument, we will focus on the first two. The first categorical imperative, known as the “Formula of the Universal Law”, states: “I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (83). Meaning, if the situation would not be possible for everyone to take part in as a universal law, then the situation does not withstand Kant’s moral theory. This situation is best described through the example of a lying promise. In short, if someone was asking for a loan with underlying intentions to lie and not pay the loan back, then a lying promise is made to the lender. If everyone was universally permitted to make a lying promise to lenders, then everyone would know of this policy and promises would no longer exist. Therefore, the conflict with a lying promise in the universal formula is not that it is bad, but rather that it would create a complete contradiction inconsistent to the principle of a promise. Thus, making a lying promise impossible and therefore also immoral under Kantian ethics (84). It is important to be reminded that the universal formula, as a categorical imperative, is binding to everyone so that no one can be more privileged or specialized above anyone
I. Utilitarian or Happiness Theory
John Stuart Mill is well known for his Utilitarian ethics …show more content…
To Kant, aggregate happiness is not the objective of moral law. In fact, Kant’s moral theories do not define what we want to achieve, but rather constrain the form of our maxims. Onora O’Neil defines a maxim in regards to Kant’s text as: “The maxim of the act is the principle in which one sees oneself as acting. A maxim expresses a person’s policy, or if he or she has no settled policy, the principle underlying the particular intention” (103). Kant argues that ‘goodness’ is not pursued through happiness. Instead, he proposes that the only good thing in this world is a “good will” (81). A good will requires a maxim of motive in which you do the right thing for duties sake, and not for any other intended maxim (82). “A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by the virtue of the volition- that is, it is good in itself…” …show more content…
For purposes of this argument, we will focus on the first two. The first categorical imperative, known as the “Formula of the Universal Law”, states: “I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (83). Meaning, if the situation would not be possible for everyone to take part in as a universal law, then the situation does not withstand Kant’s moral theory. This situation is best described through the example of a lying promise. In short, if someone was asking for a loan with underlying intentions to lie and not pay the loan back, then a lying promise is made to the lender. If everyone was universally permitted to make a lying promise to lenders, then everyone would know of this policy and promises would no longer exist. Therefore, the conflict with a lying promise in the universal formula is not that it is bad, but rather that it would create a complete contradiction inconsistent to the principle of a promise. Thus, making a lying promise impossible and therefore also immoral under Kantian ethics (84). It is important to be reminded that the universal formula, as a categorical imperative, is binding to everyone so that no one can be more privileged or specialized above anyone