Mill's Consequences Of Utilitarianism In Mill And Kant

Improved Essays
When he [Kant] begins to deduce from this precept [i.e. CI] any of the actual duties of morality, he fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.
Here Mill considers of consequences in moral action, as we will see, Mill’s consequentialism rather than Utilitarianism is the direct charge made to Kant, these two notions are not same, the utiitlirms principle is seek happiness and avoid pain, precisely moral action would be conducted on maximizing happiness and minimizing
…show more content…
To answer this, Silber points out that in the Kantian kingdom agents are all good-natured and well-behaved. We may then, appropriately ask: Are these characteristics additional premises or simply the result of agents acting under the moral law? Only the latter would be true to Kant’s ethics. I think Silber’s interpretation is essentially close to Kant’s perspective in so far as maxims derive from moral propriety such as self-preservation or security, rather than moral goodness.
As I will precisely discuss this in section of Silber’s procedurlism(2.1.1), I argue although Silber has defended Kant’s ethics against the charge of consequentialism to some degree, he has not done so in an essential way. Kantian consequentialism or specifically subjunctive consequentialism still seems unable to inform a permissible or impermissible maxim. If the subjunctive consequences possess no moral weight, Kant will be no better off than a Utilitarian who contends that Kant’s ethics is completely formal. Utilitarianism straightforwardly holds that the consequences of an act compromise the moral weight in the procedure, as, for example, when an agent prefers satisfaction or happiness. However, why is happiness held as the means by which one justifies consequences or maximized good, rather than suffering? Utilitarianism does not pretend to give a purely formal answer. Likewise, Kant must assign some moral content to subjunctive consequences. While much detail may exist in these consequences through the typic (the nature of law) and while all possibilities of the kingdom of ends might be specified and imagined, the permissibility of maxims is still

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The only genuinely good actions are the actions done exclusively out of respect for the moral rules. Kantian theory is an example of a deontological theory, meaning that the rightfulness or wrongfulness of actions does not depend on the results of the action, but instead, depends on the motives behind the action itself. This deontological approach relates to the supreme principle of morality that Kant referred to as the ‘Categorical…

    • 905 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Cognitivism Analysis

    • 985 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Kant trusted that profound quality did not lay on sense experience as Hume would recommend that moral sayings are determined through the earlier reason, as moral standards aren 't experimental like a utilitarianist would imply, however are vital truths for discerning creatures. Kant not just trusted that feelings had no part to play in the importance of "good" additionally in the route in which the "good" was realized. 'The cooperative attitude sparkles like a gem for its own purpose. ' - Kant. Kant trusted that indisputably the ethical good got from the absolute basic must be carried on simply out of 'obligation for obligations purpose, ' we ought to have no ulterior rationale to do good other than it being the best thing to do, feeling negates with this ethicalness.…

    • 985 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill used utilitarianism as a basis for ethics and he argued that we already do use utilitarianism as a moral standard. To Mill an action is right if it promotes happiness and it is wrong if it reverse happiness. Kant on the other hand bases his view of ethics on good will rather than the outcomes of happiness. As we read, utilitarianism focuses on outcomes of happiness, here we can concluded that it is based on ends, not on means or intentions. I do not totally agree with this however, a person could intend something bad and wrong but in the end, end up causing great happiness.…

    • 1351 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    It involves assessing what the people perceive to be moral and taking actions which will produce insignificant consequences on the people other than the individual performing the act. REGARDING EITHER THEORIST 6. As provided by Kant on his ethical theory, the standard of living an ethical life entails carrying out the logical reasoning behind the actions which are perceived to be moral. Kant argued that it is not a matter of following what the norm have stated to be moral but rather questioning the reason behind taking certain actions (Ross 37). Mill on the other hand in his utilitarian ethical theory based standards of living an ethical life on the ability of one to achieve maximum happiness from the…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Assess Kant’s view that ethics should be based on duty not consequences. Philosopher Immanuel Kant proposed his theory of ethics in his 1785 book ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals’. He essentially argued that moral decisions shouldn’t be based on their consequences but rather our moral duty. The deontological approach to ethics is reasonable and straightforward; it provides a stability and certainty that cannot be achieved by looking at consequences. This being said, I feel as though the outcome of an action does affect its ‘goodness’ even if unknown- consequences shouldn’t be overlooked, therefore I disagree with Kant.…

    • 1607 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Kant talks a considerable measure about the choice and decision; I believe that his hypothesis in actuality limits it. We should just take a gander at the name ‘categorical’ when talking about his Imperative. It accepts no complaints and leaves little space for imagination. On the off chance that to believe that everything is predefined and to take after your fate in the visually impaired desire to accomplish the most elevated joy and freedom, the jolt to activities and reflections will vanish progressively. These are the reasons I incline toward Nietzsche 's slavish revolt in morality.…

    • 1016 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In this paper, I will discuss Kant’s moral reasoning, both broadly and in terms of a case study, and elaborate on some issues with Kantian ethics. The core of Kant’s ideas on morality is his statement that "nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a good will". He defines this good will as “the will which acts from freedom and respect for the moral law”, meaning that one must choose by their own volition to pursue morality. Kant believes the only purely good thing is this idea of good will. In saying this, Kant draws a line between good will and traits like happiness, wealth, and even health that are usually thought to be good.…

    • 1283 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Immanuel Kant's Analysis

    • 1074 Words
    • 5 Pages

    While Kant disagrees with his fellow moral objectivists on where morals come from, it is important to understand what they agreed on: they all reject utilitarianism and the belief that morality is derived from actions that produce maximum happiness. Their reasoning against this philosophy helps to illustrate the main point of objectivism. The first problem with…

    • 1074 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Kant begins with looking at the concept of ‘good in itself;’ he shows only good will can be good without qualification (Kant, 1785, 18). Kant is not saying there are not other good things out there, he is just saying all other goods are qualified and only instrumentally good. Kant is saying the only thing that can be completely good is ‘good will’ (20). To act out of ‘good will’ means to act out of a sense of ‘moral obligations’ or ‘duty,’ one shouldn’t be acting for what the action produces, but ‘preforming them because they are impelled thereto by some other inclination (22). So, ‘an action is done from duty’, if it derives its moral worth not from the right or wrong of action, ‘but from the maxim by which it is determined’ (24).…

    • 2031 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Free Will Vs Determinism

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages

    A neutral stance to this is the claim that “ one can be held morally responsible for one’s actions only if one could have acted otherwise in a given set of circumstances.” (The Philosophical Review, page 440). Determinist would disagree with this claim because it is if an agent is never in control of the situations that they are forced into, how can they be morally responsible. Free will does not easily tie into the premise because if we choose our own action then we should be held morally reasonable for them, but if one said that “X” did Y because she/ he could it fails to prove moral responsibility and seems as if our action or arbitrary or random. However if an act is described as “not determined” or “uncaused” that means that free will cannot be used because the action is random therefore not in the agent’s power, thus making morally responsibility invalid. Simply, without the just the agent being the cause of an action, they cannot be held to moral…

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays