Similarity Between Kant And John Stuart Mill

Improved Essays
The similarity between the philosophers Kant and Mill is the base of morality on a single principle. Kant principle being the categorical Imperative in three formulas closely related to the golden rule, states that one should always act in accordance with the outcome that has the best outcome, Mil is utility. Mill argues that human principle of morality is that one can will to be a universal law of nature, Mill principle proposes the consideration of the case of kind actions for all human and creatures. Mill makes it known that individuals desire pleasure an Kant believes people should act according to the law of nature.
Mill’s theories that explain morality, argues that the usefulness of the moral worth of an action determined by the utility. on the principle of Utilitarianism strongly believes in happiness and pleasure derived from the consequence of one action, the
…show more content…
Kant believes that there is a principle of morality, and he refers it to the categorical imperative. Act in such way that you treat humanity merely to the mean to an end, but always at the end. All action should not only be as a principle but also an end. Mill claim that, in the state of the greatest happiness principle the consequence end to produce happiness and doing eon in the proportion of unhappiness. Morally good act are consequence in the fulfillment of happiness in people. Both philosopher are appealing to a consequence of the first principle and to the end of duties, Kant considers the consequence of maxim becoming a universal law of nature, and Mill consequence of his principle is a certain kind of action (ex, lying). In also pursuing happiness in the absence of pain. All human should be good in doing the right thing act in accordance to the maxim and in such way to produce the greatest amount of happiness for everyone affected by our acts in accordance to virtue by treating people like their

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    Immanuel Kant On Duty

    • 1621 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Philosophy is a discipline that studies how one ought to live, as well as study reality, nature, existence, etc. However, there are a number of philosophers who propose differing sets of morals and have different ideas of living life to its fullest (Singer v. Mill). Kant proposes that moral actions are defined by the motivation of an action, and later on explains that moral actions are duties through reason, rather than inclination. This essay will explain the validity of Kant’s argument by first explaining Kant’s view on duty, then analyse his view of duty as an object of good will, which pertains to motivations without the slightest selfishness, then argue for moral duties motivated by duty instead of inclination based on reason. It is difficult…

    • 1621 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Consider the following situations. In the first, you are an educator at the local university. You hear there is a crazed man demanding to see one of your students. Upon hiding the student in the room, you tell the man that the student did not attend class today and you don’t know where he is. Conversely, you work for a large company in New York, and it is your secretary is leaving in a few days for maternity leave.…

    • 1751 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In Steven Cahn’s book, Exploring Ethics, we learn about many philosophers and their approach on ethics. Ethics is considered to be the moral principles that govern a person 's or group 's behavior. (Wikipedia) Cahn takes us in to the approaches by Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mills, Aristotle and Virginia Held. Each philosopher had a very different view on morals and how we should approach them but we also find similarities throughout their views. Immanuel Kant believes that good will is defined by duty.…

    • 1487 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    art IIII: Immanuel Kant Immanuel Kant published A Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) five years after Bentham’s Principles of Morals and Legislations, launching a scathing critique of utilitarianism. Kant proposed that a moral action does not suggest treating individuals as a means to an end. What Kant means by this is that we treat individuals for the sake of something else (means), such as Dudley and Stephens treating Parker as a means to maximise happiness. Instead, a moral action is one that treats individuals as ends in themselves, one that does not account for external influences such as happiness. Individuals are worthy of dignity and respect not because we own our bodies and minds but because we are rational beings, capable of reason and conscious thought.…

    • 1238 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    The fact of comparison is the beginning and the persistence placed on the devotion of moral obligations Kant’s categorical imperative is indeed categorically imperative. Mill also has an outset of morality to be the responsibility of fulfilling one’s duty and succeeding following rules, but in a completely different logic. In the circumstance of Kant, duty must be done for duty’s sake, for Mill, duty must obey the happiness principle, preserving the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this approach of contrast, Aristotle varies due to him not viewing morality as duty for its own sake, or obedience of laws, for some idea of larger good, but in its place the protection of a balanced value controlling oneself between extremes. Aristotle values the fulfillment of the singular; both Kant and Mill are more apprehensive with the concentration of the…

    • 1264 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill Absolute Moral Rule

    • 654 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The question for this both Kant and Mill focus on is: is there absolute moral rule? Kant and Mill provide different perspectives on this question. Kant is a believer in absolute moral rule, whereas Mill is not a believer in it as he believes there are exceptions to moral rule if it maximizes happiness. I agree with Mill, I do not think there is not absolute moral rules and to determine if something is right dependent on the consequences. When coming up with this view, I based it on my own profession of teaching.…

    • 654 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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…

    • 1441 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Kant’s Groundworks of the Metaphysics of Morals, and Mill’s Utilitarianism, each offer different arguments about what is morality. They both give us fundamental and universal theories about morality. Before we compare the two, let’s first start with a summary of the main arguments of each philosopher. Mill begins chapter one by setting the stage for what he is going to discuss. Philosophers have discussed the foundation of morality for more than two thousand years.…

    • 1351 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    For instance, a child was drowning and you were passing by, it is generally agreed within society that you are obligated to do whatever you can to save that child. This becomes a moral issue when risk is taken into consideration. Both Kant and Mill agree that if you cannot swim and your attempt to save the child would end in increased suffering, then you are morally obligated to not jump into the water. The morality of the issue comes into play when, hypothetically speaking, you do have the ability to swim and thus, theoretically the ability to save the child but you both end up drowning anyway. Kant believes it 's the intention that dictates morality.…

    • 1751 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This principle states that an action is morally acceptable only if it’s maxim is universalizable. There are three main steps to this principle: 1) formulate maxim, 2) imagine a world where everyone acts on it, 3) ask whether the action would be achievable in that world. If yes, the action is permissible. This shows a key difference between the principle of utility, as an action isn’t required with Kant, they’re merely acceptable. The next underlying principle with Kant’s theory is the principle of humanity.…

    • 1103 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Lifeboat Dilemma There were several issues involving ethics in The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens case. The case facts are subject to a major ethical issue involving whether it is ethical to kill a man to save three. Some would argue that when given a situation where at least one person will die, we should try to save as many human lives as possible. Others should state that the value of human life is immeasurable. Who are we to decide if one life is equal to another?…

    • 736 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    David Hume and Immanuel Kant are both known for their great contributions to moral philosophy. Hume who is mainly known for his empiricism, skepticism and naturalism and Kant who is best recognized for his great work in metaphysics, ethics and also for his contributions in others disciplines in the area of philosophy. Although they were both exceptional philosophers and gave stupendous apports, Hume and Kant agreed nor differed in various aspect and ideas. Hume believed and is mostly based on his empiricism which involves the theory of the mind. Hume’s empiricism consist in to affirm that the moral foundation is not in the reason but in the senses.…

    • 746 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Both agree the morality is not based off the result of an action, but rather the individual 's judgment about that action. To understand the moral world both Kant and Aristotle believed that logic was the only way-- they argued that emotions alone were too risky and personal to be helpful in making moral claims. Also, both men agree that some actions are just evil and should never be taken. There are natural and moral evils-- hurricanes and toothaches are examples of natural evils, murder and lying are examples of moral…

    • 1199 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Kant explains that developing a “metaphysics of morals” help us gain a clear understanding of moral principles to align them with our moral duties. Kant argues moral principles are not based on factors such as circumstances, needs, and desires; they derive from a priori concepts. He makes the claims that actions are considered moral if they are performed without underlying motives, not on the basis of consequences, and not based out of mere duty. Kant is not a consequentialist and thinks intentions behind an action determines if it is good or bad. This is interrelated with the concept of good will.…

    • 1649 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He strived to make morality and the same principles compliment all beings and make them view the world in only one way, his way. Immanuel Kant was a philosopher that believed morality is based on reason and not passion and it could be provable by reason as well. Kant’s ethics are all based off of the fundamental principle of morality, which comes with the freedom of your character and helping people, which was morally correct in his viewpoint. Kant speaks about the idea of freedom and the fundamental principle of morality. He explains that the reason that people are promoted to accomplish the correct action is because of freedom.…

    • 703 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays