The Philosophies Of Immanuel Kant And John Stuart Mill

The philosophies of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are essentially polar opposites of one another, but in the most basic form they have similarities. Mill’s main belief was in utilitarianism, ascertaining that individuals should act in such a way as to maximize overall utility, and the preponderance of pleasure over pain. Kant classified as a transcendental idealist, holding that experiences are governed by necessary causal laws, which almost posits itself into a subsection of rationalism, as causal laws are often with reason. The philosophies of the modern philosophers Kant and Mill have disparities in a wide variety of areas, such as ethics, and have minimal similarities. In terms of a general philosophy, Kant’s Copernican Revolution …show more content…
For instance, both propose to base morality on a single first principle. Kant’s basis is the categorical imperative, where duties are not relative to ends, the goal, they tell individuals in society how to act no matter what the ends are. In his categorical imperative, Kant transcribes two main versions of the imperative; the first is to act according to the maxim, a principle governing conduct, and at the same time obey a universal law, a law applying to everyone. The second version of Kant’s categorical imperative is deemed the practical imperative, stating that people should always be treated as an end and never just as a means. Whereas, Mill based morality on utility as an act utilitarian, holding that individual actions should be chosen to maximize overall utility, or a measure of pleasure or pain. Mill distinguished among pleasures not just in terms of quantity though, such as Bentham did, but rather in quality and appeals to personal preferences for deciding what holds the higher …show more content…
Kant appeals and stress reasons, especially in his belief in synthetic a priori knowledge, where knowledge is independent of experience, meaning that knowledge is more or less based in reason. Additionally, Kant sees epistemological status of morality as innate, meaning the concept of morality is in one’s mind at birth. However, Mill is an empiricist, whom believes that knowledge is based on experience, thus the epistemological status of morality is acquired and learned over time. Furthermore, in the realm of what is considered good, Kant and Mill have opposing viewpoints. Kant sees that the only thing that is good is the good will, whereas Mill sees happiness as the absence of pain, or the preponderance of pleasure over pain. Also, Kant and Mill have varying viewpoints on the role of God in their philosophies. Kant cannot prove the existence of God, but ultimately believes that a belief in God is required for ethics. Mill posits that there is a finite God, one that cannot prevent evil as God is not omnipotent. In summation, the modern philosophers Kant and Mill have a vast degree of differences present in their philosophies, with few similarities, manifesting mostly in the fact that both Kant and Mill view philosophy from differing perspectives. Kant views philosophy as a transcendental idealist, with a hint of rationalism, whereas