Mill Absolute Moral Rule

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. Would it be ok for me to lie to a student if the consequences of lying are greater than those of lying. My first reaction tells me that lying is always wrong, but I can of a variety of examples in my life where I have lied to avoid …show more content…
The United States Constitution is a very successful and organized document who’s original rules of government are generally followed, however there are amendments that have changed or altered those rules as well. Moral rule is no different, although we can make general moral rules such as: do not lie, do not cheat, and do not steal. There are certain exceptions to these rules that result in the greatest happiness overall. I like the example the text gave us about President Harry Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb, although the bomb would kill many people it would also save many people. Killing innocent people is considered wrong but if it saves more people than it kills that results in greater “happiness” for a greater number of people. This is an example of a generally accepted moral rule having an exception. I think it begs the question of if being moral hurts more people than it helps is it actually moral? Morality to me is based on how can the greatest number of people achieve happiness, and for the most part I think the absolute moral rules accomplish this but there are also exceptions from those rules to achieve the same result. Therefore I agree with Mills’ that there are no absolute moral