Evaluation Of John Stuart Mill's Arguments

This paper will evaluate the practicable merits of arguments made by John Stuart Mill in and Immanuel Kant regarding motivation and consequences in determining morality. Mill bases his argument on Utilitarianism which seeks to maximize the total amount of happiness and minimize the amount of pain and suffering. Mill removes focus from the motivation and places higher importance on the consequence/result of an action to determine one’s morality. Kant emphasizes the importance of motivation as morality is concerned and dwindles the importance of consequences. This paper will conclude that Kant’s argument is more practicable because it does not hold the individual responsible for circumstances out of their control and places value in motivation, …show more content…
Kant proposes there are laws dictating two types of behavior, involuntary behavior (biological needs, impulse, etc.,) and voluntary behavior (morals and free will) (Kant 4:388). He distinguishes irrational beings as those acting from impulse from rational beings as those who can deliberate and act from free will or reason. Kant claims the major difference between irrational beings and rational beings is in the ability for their actions to be universalized; it is sustainable and maintains order for all beings to act from reason at all times but it is not sustainable for all beings to act from impulse or inclination because these are subjective values and often lead to selfish behavior (Kant 4:402). For Kant, this is the categorical imperative that guides morality; he puts forth the claim that all rational beings should behave in a way that could be written into law and order would be maintained (Kant 4:416). Additionally, the categorical imperative is “limited by no condition and, as absolutely although practically necessary, can be called quite strictly a command” (Kant 4:417) Here, Kant explains that behaving with the motivation of the categorical imperative is absolutely necessary at all times, regardless of specific circumstances (even when it contradict legal doctrine), and acting in any other way would be a transgression of the moral law (Kant 4:417, 4:420). For Kant, the moral value is in the motivation or duty and not in the consequence of a certain action. Moral actions are only moral if done for the sake or motivation of the moral law, not simply in conformity with the moral law (4:390). Now that both arguments have been set forth, the next section will discuss the merits of each in specific