Mill and Kant
Kant and Mill are two philosophers with differing ethical theories. The crux of the disagreement between these two philosophers is that they both disagree on the methods by which we should derive moral rules and guidelines. Specifically, which guidelines we should use in deciding what is ethical, and which justifications we should use for the evaluating moral value of actions? Kant’s deontological theory attempts to answer these questions through a sound reason based approach. The strength in Kant’s theory is that it rests on a foundation of consistent obligatory universal rules, with an emphasis on the intentions of the agent. While Mill tackles the issue from the standpoint of utilitarianism. With a formulation that aims to …show more content…
The unconditional "absoluteness" of Kant 's moral judgements can creates a problem in instances of conflicting rules, or maxims. When deontological theory is applied to an instance of two conflicting absolute rules, such as 'should lie to protect an innocent man, ' it offers no clearly ethical answer. In Kantian theory 'do not lie ' and 'do not let innocent people die ' are both moral rules, and we are obliged to follow both. If forced to choose Kant says that we shouldn 't lie even if we know a innocent person will be killed. The criticism against this is that it is at best unethical, and at the worst Irrational. Who wouldn 't lie to protect an innocent person from certain …show more content…
Mills recommendation the in rescue 2 scenario would have been that the rescuers should run over the lone individual tied to the narrow road, in other to save the lives of the five stranded. His reccomendation in rescue one would have been based on an examination of the outcomes of saving the five imminently threatned by the tide. Compared to the possible outcome of saving only a single person. In rescue two is would have based his reccommendation on a similar examination o fthe consequences of the consequences of stopping for the lone individual trapped on the path. In his examination Mill would apply the Principle of Utility. An ethical guideline that believes that an act is permissible when it is as good as, or better, than all possible actions for an agent. Therefore, according to Mills principle of utilitarianism it would have been permissible to only save one life, when you could have saved five. It would be harder for mills to justify his second recommendation in scenario two, that the rescuers should run over an innocent person. Undoubtedly, the rescuer would have felt that running over a man is a bad act. However, Mills would have justified it through the principle of utility, because while it 's a bad act, it 's still permissible so long as, there is no other action that would have better consequences. Thus, the end justifie 's the means. Mills
Kant and Mill are two philosophers with differing ethical theories. The crux of the disagreement between these two philosophers is that they both disagree on the methods by which we should derive moral rules and guidelines. Specifically, which guidelines we should use in deciding what is ethical, and which justifications we should use for the evaluating moral value of actions? Kant’s deontological theory attempts to answer these questions through a sound reason based approach. The strength in Kant’s theory is that it rests on a foundation of consistent obligatory universal rules, with an emphasis on the intentions of the agent. While Mill tackles the issue from the standpoint of utilitarianism. With a formulation that aims to …show more content…
The unconditional "absoluteness" of Kant 's moral judgements can creates a problem in instances of conflicting rules, or maxims. When deontological theory is applied to an instance of two conflicting absolute rules, such as 'should lie to protect an innocent man, ' it offers no clearly ethical answer. In Kantian theory 'do not lie ' and 'do not let innocent people die ' are both moral rules, and we are obliged to follow both. If forced to choose Kant says that we shouldn 't lie even if we know a innocent person will be killed. The criticism against this is that it is at best unethical, and at the worst Irrational. Who wouldn 't lie to protect an innocent person from certain …show more content…
Mills recommendation the in rescue 2 scenario would have been that the rescuers should run over the lone individual tied to the narrow road, in other to save the lives of the five stranded. His reccomendation in rescue one would have been based on an examination of the outcomes of saving the five imminently threatned by the tide. Compared to the possible outcome of saving only a single person. In rescue two is would have based his reccommendation on a similar examination o fthe consequences of the consequences of stopping for the lone individual trapped on the path. In his examination Mill would apply the Principle of Utility. An ethical guideline that believes that an act is permissible when it is as good as, or better, than all possible actions for an agent. Therefore, according to Mills principle of utilitarianism it would have been permissible to only save one life, when you could have saved five. It would be harder for mills to justify his second recommendation in scenario two, that the rescuers should run over an innocent person. Undoubtedly, the rescuer would have felt that running over a man is a bad act. However, Mills would have justified it through the principle of utility, because while it 's a bad act, it 's still permissible so long as, there is no other action that would have better consequences. Thus, the end justifie 's the means. Mills