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
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