Morality And The Metaphysics Of Morals And Mill 's Utilitarianism

1441 Words Oct 27th, 2015 6 Pages
Morality as used in the context is defined as the principles revolving around the differentiation between wrong and right behavior of the human. As the last thinker of the enlightenment, Kant was a philosopher that believed that reason was the only thing that morality can come from. In contrast Mill was a philosopher who believed that morality is utility, meaning that something is moral only if it brings happiness or pleasure. In looking at both Kant’s text Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals and Mill’s Utilitarianism we see both differences and similarities in Mill’s enlarged sense of justice and Kant’s kingdom of ends. To begin with, Kant’s approach to determining what is moral and what is not and some background on his philosophy is discussed. “There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualifications, except a good will” (Kant, 7). For Kant something can only be moral if and only if that action is done out of good will. A good will is one that acts with reason and that one does something because they ought to do it and not because of some other external motive. Kant’s first principle, the categorical imperative, states that you should simply do x. This means that you should do what you ought to do and not worry about the outcome. In regards to Kant, the origin of morality is self-imposed, and his scope is all rational beings. Animals are not rational and he does not believe in…

Related Documents