Throughout the years, philosophers have asked what makes an action good. For example. What if you see an infant in the middle of the road? A car is coming up a hill and can’t see the infant. You quickly try to run in the road to save the infant but the car get to it first. Can your actions still be considered morally good? It depends on who you ask because each philosopher have different views and theories on situations. Immanuel Kant would say that the moral worth of your actions are determined totally on whether if you were motivated by duty whereas John Mill would say that the worth of your actions are determined by the amount of happiness it produces and for the greatest number of people. So if it is your duty to attempt to save the infant
…show more content…
He produced new ideas and published works about the nature of reality and free will. Majority of his remarkable understandings can be inaugurated in the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) and Metaphysics of Morals (1798) which grounds his personal moral philosophy. Kant believes in the theory of deontology which states that we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of the outcome meaning that what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong despite what the situation may be. “An act has moral worth, not because it has good consequences nor because it was the right thing to do, but only because it was done from a certain motive: it was done because it was the right thing to do.” (Kant and Moral Motivation). In this scenario, Kant would save that one particular Indian’s life from getting killed by the captain but even though the other 19 Indians lives would be saved by allowing that one Indian to die would not justify making that decision to accept that request from the captain. He would consider on helping that one Indian before the rest of them because that one Indian has already been selected to be killed. Not saying that Kant would be immoral if he doesn’t help the other Indians but due to the fact that one Indian has already been selected, it’s only moral to help him because Kant doesn’t know for certain if the captain wouldn’t …show more content…
John Mill’s ethical approach on my view is superior because according to Kant, when a man acts immorally, he forfeits his rights. Therefore, we are not compelled to act morally towards immoral men. Morality is relative to an individual. For example. Serial killers would probably tell you that they know what they’re doing is wrong but they still killed for pleasure. That would be acting out of Mill’s utilitarianism. Then you have people that would argue that although society considers their murders immoral, they themselves believe that they are doing a good thing. Maybe culling overpopulation or smiting those that are truly evil. These people would be acting out of duty which would be falling into Kant’s Deontology. I would thank a serial killer for stopping someone who attempts to harm me or my loved ones and would in fact take pleasure in seeing someone with the intentions to hurt me harmed. That’s why John Mill’s ethical approach is more
He produced new ideas and published works about the nature of reality and free will. Majority of his remarkable understandings can be inaugurated in the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) and Metaphysics of Morals (1798) which grounds his personal moral philosophy. Kant believes in the theory of deontology which states that we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of the outcome meaning that what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong despite what the situation may be. “An act has moral worth, not because it has good consequences nor because it was the right thing to do, but only because it was done from a certain motive: it was done because it was the right thing to do.” (Kant and Moral Motivation). In this scenario, Kant would save that one particular Indian’s life from getting killed by the captain but even though the other 19 Indians lives would be saved by allowing that one Indian to die would not justify making that decision to accept that request from the captain. He would consider on helping that one Indian before the rest of them because that one Indian has already been selected to be killed. Not saying that Kant would be immoral if he doesn’t help the other Indians but due to the fact that one Indian has already been selected, it’s only moral to help him because Kant doesn’t know for certain if the captain wouldn’t …show more content…
John Mill’s ethical approach on my view is superior because according to Kant, when a man acts immorally, he forfeits his rights. Therefore, we are not compelled to act morally towards immoral men. Morality is relative to an individual. For example. Serial killers would probably tell you that they know what they’re doing is wrong but they still killed for pleasure. That would be acting out of Mill’s utilitarianism. Then you have people that would argue that although society considers their murders immoral, they themselves believe that they are doing a good thing. Maybe culling overpopulation or smiting those that are truly evil. These people would be acting out of duty which would be falling into Kant’s Deontology. I would thank a serial killer for stopping someone who attempts to harm me or my loved ones and would in fact take pleasure in seeing someone with the intentions to hurt me harmed. That’s why John Mill’s ethical approach is more