John Stuart Mill Vs. Immanuel Kant

2228 words - 9 pages

John Stuart Mill vs. Immanuel Kant
The aim of this paper is to clearly depict how John Stuart Mill’s belief to do good for all is more appropriate for our society than Immanuel Kant’s principle that it is better to do what's morally just. I will explain why Mill’s theory served as a better guide to moral behavior and differentiate between the rights and responsibilities of human beings to themselves and society.
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are philosophers who addressed the issues of morality in terms of how moral customs are formed. Immanuel Kant presented one perspective in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals that is founded on his belief that the worth of man is inherent ...view middle of the document...

His input to the theory consists of his recognition of differences of quality and intensity among pleasures. Mill disagreed that "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied," meaning, human dissatisfaction is superior to animal satisfaction, or more clearer stated as "better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied". This means the fool would simply be of a different view because he did not know both sides of the question. This statement means that Mill has rejected the identification of the concept "happiness" and replaced it with "pleasure and the absence of pain" and rejected the concept "unhappiness" and replaced it with "pain and the absence of pleasure." Even though his point was based on the maximization of happiness, he showed the differences between pleasures that are higher and lower in quality.
Mill's principle of utility seeks for the logical rationality of ethics through the consequences of actions as the consideration determining their morality, therefore the possession of happiness as opposed to the avoidance of pain. Utilitarianism might be an instance of a more general theory of right consequentialism, which supports that right and wrong can only, be reviewed by the kindness of consequences. This common kind of theory can be easily understood by considering the form of consequentialism. Consequentialism states that an act is right if, of those accessible to the agent at the time, it would produce the most overall value in the end. Utilitarian views are formed around the idea of attaining happiness and Mill maintains hedonism; happiness or pleasure is the only inherent good for people. Mill believes hedonists should uphold that pleasures involving mature intellectual, creative and emotional capabilities are basically better. In Mill’s utilitarian theory, he states that there are qualitative pleasures as well as quantitative. Hedonism demonstrates that intellectual pleasures are superior pleasures because they are in better quality than those of purely extrinsic value. Kant sees this difference and explains that a numerical value can’t be placed on something that has essential value.
Kant’s theory on morality is in terms of his ethics of pure duty. Kant differentiates two kinds of law shaped by reason. Kant believes that standard agents are moral agents, that every moral agent has the same capability as any other and thus must be given thought and respect. Therefore, moral agents cannot be used to reach an end but are ends by themselves. Given an end we wish to reach, reason offers a theoretical imperative, or rule of action for reaching that end. Deriving a means to achieve some desired end is the most common use of reason.
However, Kant shows that the acceptable formation of the moral law cannot be merely hypothetical because our actions cannot be moral on the ground of some conditional purpose or goal. Morality requires an unrestricted statement of one's duty and reason...

Other Essays Like John Stuart Mill vs. Immanuel Kant

Ethical Theories Essay

1181 words - 5 pages , practical wisdom and eudemonia, are the three main concepts that virtue ethics’ enforces. Aristotle and Plato are virtue ethics principle ethicists. Utilitarianism’s principal concepts are: egalitarianism, hedonism, consequentialism. This ethical system is based on a perception that a choice is moral when it has a result that is more positive for people. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-73) who was actually one of Bentham’s

Utilitarism Essay

2385 words - 10 pages tangible image of our moral freedom. I agree that Kant is correct in claiming that morality requires autonomy. Autonomous people are considered as being ends in themselves in that they have the capacity to determine their own destiny. For John Stewart Mill, the concept of autonomy involves the capacity to think, decide and act on the basis of such thought and decision freely and independently. He advocated for autonomy in his principle of liberty

Business Morality

986 words - 4 pages bad, is a type of consequentialism. Notable philosophers who held this belief were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (Board, 2015). The problems that arise with this belief are that it implies that it can sometimes be morally right to harm people if the outcome is positive and beneficial to even more people. In terms of business if one was to have utilitarian beliefs when making business decisions brings the possibility to overlook or harm

Kant vs Utilitarianism

708 words - 3 pages . Immanuel Kant’s moral system is based on a belief that reason is the final authority for morality. Kant’s moral system relied heavily on the idea of the “categorical imperative.”  The categorical imperative was important for Kant because they offer no reasons, qualifications, or conditions; they just tell us what it is we must do or not do. It is easier to determine an action as morally right in Kantian ethics than in utilitarian ethics. John Stuart

Business Ethics

1311 words - 6 pages Categorical Imperative Immanuel Kant is a German philosopher, who created Kant’s principal imperative as expressed: “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it would become a universal law.”(Barlaup, Hanne, Stuart, 2009, p.6). Kant is simply stating that if people desire others to act as they do in a given situation then that act could be universalized and this is a morally acceptable action. If people

The Teachings of Bhagavad-Gita

926 words - 4 pages towards others. My own views are more utilitarian and in concurrence with John Stuart Mill. He believes that a moral action is one that benefits and brings about the most happiness for the greatest number of people. This is the heart of utilitarianism and humanitarianism as well, and it is the core of my own beliefs. Performing that which can help the most people and better the lives of the largest population is what I believe to be the duty

Bribery and Corruption in International Trade

1536 words - 7 pages as today with all those technology and computerisation tend to dehumanise putting his theory in the organisations decision making. Moreover, Kant point out the importance of the motivation is not enough only doing the right but the individual must do the right thing from desire to do the right thing for its own sake. John Stuart Mill believes “utility, or the greatest happiness principal” (Larmer 2002 p35) which greatest happiness for greatest

Mid-Term Examination

1432 words - 6 pages identifies that the good in pleasure maximizes the good that everybody’s happiness which count the same. In conclusion, from all the philosophical approach from both Kant (Duty Ethics) and John Stuart Mill (Utilitarianism), I disagree with both of them because it is morally wrong to suggest killing a human being regardless the situation. The reason why it is morally wrong because there will be other means of resources to provide for food

English 102

3226 words - 13 pages absolutely right way to engage in these practices. Rachels writes, Cultural relativism warns us, quite rightly, about the danger of assuming that all of our preferences are based on some absolute rational standard. They are not. Many (but not all) of our practices are merely peculiar to our society. Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill is most famous for defending the ethical theory called Utilitarianism, which was first developed by

Kant’s View

1060 words - 5 pages ago from religious philosophers, philosophers and scholars who claim to understand the way we as “humans” should live, and set fourth curtain rules and guidelines for us to live by. Many would object to these morality views but some of these views have stood the test of time and are still being used today. One philosophers views in particular, Immanuel Kant. He’s known to be one of the greatest philosophers known to man. Kant had his own set of

Nozick vs Rawls

1702 words - 7 pages from persons believed to be more than men, and backed by supernatural terrors."  John Stuart Mill Equality means lowest common denominator. No one wants that. That is truly awful. Mark Willey In this paper I will explain why Robert Nozick (1938-2002) denies that justice requires attention to patterns of distribution, proposed by John Rawls (1921-2002). In answering the question, Nozick’s theory of justice will be explored in

Related Papers

Philosopher John Stuart Mill Essay

1275 words - 6 pages Philosopher Research Paper John Stuart Mill Prepared for Professor Sandra Gates Kaplan University Prepared by Lea Geckler November 1, 2011 INTRODUCTION This report discusses the history, theories, proof and weaknesses of John Stuart Mill ideals on Utilitarianism. Mill believes that if people participate in ethical actions it will create pleasure in life, and that is what most people want in life is pleasure not pain

"On Liberty" By John Stuart Mill

1011 words - 5 pages What does John Stuart Mill think liberty is? That is a question that which I hope I can answer in the following essay.One of the main purposes of his essay is to make the reader think about how extreme limits and laws can be for the individual to still have his or her deserving rights. There has always been a struggle between freedom and power (laws). The stricter the system of laws, the less freedom we have. When you think about it, every law

Jeremy Bentham And John Stuart Mill

1783 words - 8 pages Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Each of these philosophers expounded and endorsed the principle of utility. For utilitarians, pleasure and pain are the two driving forces. “Nature has place mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure” (Bentham 367). For Bentham the principle of utility was the principle for ethical questions. The principle can be simply stated as providing the greatest amount of happiness for the

John Stuart Mill On Liberty Chapter 4: Of The Limits To The Authority Of Society Over The Individual

1642 words - 7 pages John Stuart MillOn LibertyChapter IV: Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the IndividualOBJECTIVE PARTJ.S. Mill, in his extended essay On Liberty, more specifically in Chapter 4, discusses the appropriate level of authority that society should have over the individual. He starts by rejecting the idea of social contract previously founded by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, yet acknowledges "the rights and duties