Another distinctive characteristic of Mill’s philosophy is how he addresses the concept of “ingredients of happiness” (36). It is introduced in the text from the common association of happiness as an end in itself and the process of identifying the means intended for that end. Where past philosophers have engaged the idea of means-end reasoning with little interest, Mill introduces an interesting perspective on the topic. For example, it is easy to imagine money not as an end in itself, but as a means to attaining happiness or pleasure through spending it on whatever the agent wishes. In this case though, money is not simply a means to happiness, it is taken into consideration with all the other effects, desirable and otherwise, as an
…show more content…
The second formulation is the formula of humanity, which says that people should always be treated as ends in themselves, and never means to an end (Kant 36). The third formulation is that of autonomy of the will, which considers individuals as their own self-legislators (Kant 38). Together, these concepts establish the independence of individuals as free people, never to be used for some end or deprived of their autonomy. A first principle that accounts for these ideas would read: To behave in accordance with the moral law, one must act from one’s own rational mind while both aiming to promote the general happiness and reduce suffering wherever possible. To promote pain and suffering in any of its forms is not in accordance with the moral law, as would be the failure to recognize one’s fellow human beings as ends in …show more content…
Kant stresses the importance of impartiality to empirical parts and using pure reason, but fails to pinpoint convincing moral duties. Mill carefully considers the consequences of actions, but fails to account for the intuitive biases of individuals when choosing how to act and what moral worth they carry. By combining the best parts of each philosophy, and paying due diligence to the rights of people as ends in themselves, the resulting philosophy can be at once more broad and more precise, and perhaps even applicable to modern
The second formulation is the formula of humanity, which says that people should always be treated as ends in themselves, and never means to an end (Kant 36). The third formulation is that of autonomy of the will, which considers individuals as their own self-legislators (Kant 38). Together, these concepts establish the independence of individuals as free people, never to be used for some end or deprived of their autonomy. A first principle that accounts for these ideas would read: To behave in accordance with the moral law, one must act from one’s own rational mind while both aiming to promote the general happiness and reduce suffering wherever possible. To promote pain and suffering in any of its forms is not in accordance with the moral law, as would be the failure to recognize one’s fellow human beings as ends in …show more content…
Kant stresses the importance of impartiality to empirical parts and using pure reason, but fails to pinpoint convincing moral duties. Mill carefully considers the consequences of actions, but fails to account for the intuitive biases of individuals when choosing how to act and what moral worth they carry. By combining the best parts of each philosophy, and paying due diligence to the rights of people as ends in themselves, the resulting philosophy can be at once more broad and more precise, and perhaps even applicable to modern