Kant's Utilitarianism

Improved Essays
Kant’s **metaphysics** and Mill’s **utilitarianism**, two landmark works of philosophy, are frequently compared and contrasted in the scholarly world, suggesting that the ideas put forth in the works have a place in the modern world. When these works are compared against each other through the scope of today 's (societal) context, one line of thinking tends to be the basis for our modern thought process. Through Kant 's reasoning, one should base their decisions on pure logic and reason, while Mill theorized that decisions should be made based on what makes one happy and thus what feels right. As humans are more sympathetic and emotional creatures than they are based on reason, Mill 's philosophy should be the philosophy that has the greatest …show more content…
Since Kant only looks at what is right from a logical and rational standpoint, there tends to be a conflicts of interest when it comes to what other people, or the people impacted by the decision, want. This is because humans are not pure logic, the ideas formed are largely influenced by emotion. Kant 's process would most likely leave people upset as they may feel as though the person thinking through Kant 's viewpoint did not try to do what was best and was only considering themselves, whereas with Mill 's philosophy, the greater good is taken into account and more people feel as though they were considered in the process. When looking at the anthology of ideas that Mill put forth, it is clear that most all of the ideas it contains remain true to this day. One may even argue that his work is the source of many of our currently held beliefs given the numerous parallels to our present …show more content…
He continues by arguing that happiness is the sole basis of morality, and that this is all that people work for. He shows that everything that people desire are related to the pursuit of happiness in some form, whether it be wealth for whatever is desired for food just to survive, people get happiness out of both scenarios. Mill argues that justice is based on utility, and that rights exist only because they are necessary for human happiness as without them people feel oppressed and controlled. Under these conditions, it is natural to try to break free in order to pursue what makes one

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Through spring-boarding off opponent’s arguments, Mill defines the utilitarian vocabulary and fortifies his theory of morality. Mill begins by first defining “utility” in a way that holds the word neutral from belief that it is opposed to or based solely on pleasure. He defines utility as “not something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself, together with…

    • 1076 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    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.…

    • 1497 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    John Stuart Mill, a philosopher during the mid-1800’s, is known as one of the most important western political philosophers in the past three hundred years. Many of his arguments on freedom can be seen intertwined with the current way we run societies around the world today. Being a self proclaimed Utilitarian, Mill focuses his arguments on making the collective reside with the most utility possible, with utility being defined by happiness. To achieve maximum utility, Mill presents three larger arguments,the harm principle, experiments of living, and freedom of speech. Before one can begin to agree or criticize Mill's arguments they must first delve into the core of Mill’s teachings, the harm principle.…

    • 1836 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill Vs Mill

    • 682 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Ethical Issues- Is it morally justifiable to kill one person to save three people? Would it make a difference if Parker had given consent? What if they all agreed to a Lottery? Summary of Philosophies of Mill and Kant- Mill believes in principle of utility. The right action or behavior for the greatest number of people.…

    • 682 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill Absolute Moral Rule

    • 654 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The question for this both Kant and Mill focus on is: is there absolute moral rule? Kant and Mill provide different perspectives on this question. Kant is a believer in absolute moral rule, whereas Mill is not a believer in it as he believes there are exceptions to moral rule if it maximizes happiness. I agree with Mill, I do not think there is not absolute moral rules and to determine if something is right dependent on the consequences. When coming up with this view, I based it on my own profession of teaching.…

    • 654 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Since Mill is a utilitarian his morals are pretty concise and do not have leeway. The focus of utilitarianism is now happiness and where that emanates from…

    • 1435 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Mill expresses the specifics of his views in his literary work titled Utilitarianism. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism measures the goodness of actions…

    • 1181 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Virtue: Mill vs Aristotle John Stuart Mill and Aristotle agree men ultimately desire happiness. However, they disagree on what happiness is, and what the virtues and goods which result in happiness are. Mill argues utilitarianism, claiming that each good, or source of pleasure, is desired in and of itself, and all of these goods build up happiness. whereas Aristotle claims that all goods are aimed towards an end, which is happiness. Although Mill has the appeal of pleasure, Aristotle was ahead of the game, and he has a thoroughly formed case for happiness as the highest end which goes deeper than Mill’s views, making his classic form of ethics one worth keeping around.…

    • 1138 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill advocates utilitarianism where he says the goal is to reach the greatest happiness and actions that oppose that end is wrong. Unlike, the medieval thinkers Mill see happiness as pleasure without pain and unhappiness as pain without pleasure. Mill’s moral framework is constructed by the notion that our desires are fueled towards our own happiness and if everyone lived in that way then it could achieve the highest principle of happiness for the general good. In addition, to that Mill says that our decisions should strive for the greater good of everybody and that our personal effects have no place in morality. Furthermore, the only tolerable sacrifice is for the sake of a greater happiness other than that Mill doesn’t believe in sacrifice itself.…

    • 459 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill tells us in his Autobiography that the “little work with the name” Utilitarianism arose from unpublished material, the greater part of which he completed in the final years of his marriage to Harriet Taylor, that is, before 1858. For its publication he brought old manuscripts into form and added some new material. The work first appeared in 1861 as a series of three articles for Fraser’s Magazine, a journal that, though directed at an educated audience, was by no means a philosophical organ. Mill planned from the beginning a separate book publication, which came to light in 1863.…

    • 809 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Both Mill’s utilitarianism and Kant’s moral theory are realist theories. However, based on Kant’s moral theory “the…

    • 1379 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Utilitarianism and Kantianism take polarizing views on what we, as humans, should define as morally valuable and morally correct. In this paper, I will argue that Utilitarianism undermines the humanity principle and Kantianism illuminates necessary values when determining action. Additionally, I will argue that both ideologies do fall short when determining in a general sense what is morally valuable. Before arguing for my thesis, however, I will explain both Mill and Kant’s theories respectively. Then I will present a case that tests the plausibility of the two theories and offer what I take to be the best response in the case from the perspective of the individual involved.…

    • 1728 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill’s argument of Utilitarianism is a broad view that explains the base principle for morality is happiness. As stated, “the creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or “the greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.” (Mill, 7) Every human works toward achieving happiness and pleasure, while avoiding pain and suffering.…

    • 849 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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).…

    • 1145 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This essay will set out to prove that Mill’s belief that our moral imperative is to maximize net happiness without accounting for equal distribution, regardless of certain individuals’ happiness, is incorrect. It will be shown that Mill’s argument system for deciding this is flawed, and that it lacks vital definitions that determine the basis of the argument. This essay concludes that without these proper definitions for happiness or pleasure, and without a way of quantifying these, it is impossible to objectively maximize happiness without also attempting to distribute it equally among every individual. First, we must examine and dissect Mill’s argument before we can refute it.…

    • 1213 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays