...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 in his skill to reason. John Stuart Mill holds another belief as presented in the book, Utilitarianism, which is seemingly conflicting with the thoughts of Kant. What is most unique about the ethics of morality is the idea of responsibilities to particular individuals. According to both Mill and Kant, moral obligations are not fundamentally particularistic because they are rooted in universal moral principles. Both philosophers have made great impacts in their niche areas in the field. An analysis of their theories may help develop a better understanding of them and their theories. Mill holds an empiricist theory while Kant holds a rationalist theory. Kant explains morality through forms that he believes are essential to free and sensible judgment. Mill’s utilitarian approach is a form of consequential theory because the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the outcomes. Kant’s ethics of duty is the foundation for his categorical imperative...
Words: 2175 - Pages: 9
...Utilitarianism "According to act-utilitarianism, it is the value of the consequences of the particular act that counts when determining whether the act is right. Bentham's theory is act-utilitarian, and so is that of J.J.C. Smart. One objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory, if only the value of the particular consequences of the particular act is great enough. Another objection is that act-utilitarianism seems better in theory than in practice, since we hardly ever have the time and the knowledge to predict the consequences of an act, assess their value, and make comparisons with possible alternative acts. Modern act-utilitarians think that these objections can be met. Others have developed alternatives to act-utilitarianism, e.g. rule-utilitarianism, and other forms of indirect utilitarianism." The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy ed. Thomas Mautner Ethical principle according to which an action is right if it tends to maximize happiness, not only that of the agent but also of everyone affected. Thus, utilitarians focus on the consequences of an act rather than on its intrinsic nature or the motives of the agent Classical utilitarianism is hedonist, but values other than, or in addition to, pleasure (ideal utilitarianism) can be employed, or — more neutrally, and in a version popular in economics — anything can be regarded as valuable that appears as an object of rational...
Words: 1521 - Pages: 7
...interests. Proponents of this theory base their view on the alleged fact that human beings are, by nature, selfish (the doctrine of psychological egoism). Critics of egoism argue that (a) psychological egoism is implausible, (b) egoism is not really a moral principle, and (c) egoism ignores blatant wrongs. 3. Utilitarianism, another consequentialist theory, maintains that the morally right action is the one that provides the greatest good for all those affected. In an organizational context, utilitarianism provides an objective way to resolve conflicts of self-interest and encourages a realistic and result-oriented approach to moral decision making. But critics contend that (a) utilitarianism is not really workable, (b) some actions are wrong even if they produce good results, and (c) utilitarianism incorrectly overlooks considerations of justice and the distribution of happiness. 4. Kant’s theory is an important example of a purely nonconsequentialist approach to ethics. Kant held that only when we act from good will (moral reason) does our action have moral worth. Good will is the only thing that is good in itself. 5. Kant’s categorical imperative states that an action is morally right if and only if we can rationally will that the maxim (or principle) represented by the action be a universal law. For example, a...
Words: 802 - Pages: 4
...were incomparable with the views of the Utilitarian. Wojtyla saw that “at first sight [Utilitarianism] seems both right and attractive, for it is difficult to imagine that people could act otherwise, that is, that they would want to find more pain than pleasure...
Words: 1751 - Pages: 8
...Utilitarianism and the Kantian theory are both ethical theories that try to prove where the moral worth of an action lies. However these theories differ in a number of ways. Utilitarianism is a theory that “considers the pursuit of higher, distinctively human pleasures.” (Mill 115) With utilitarianism, morality is based on outcomes. An action is right if it results in the greatest good for the most number of people. Kant says you do good because you have a duty to do good; the consequences are completely irrelevant. “A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects.” (Kant 141) With Kantian morality one's intentions and good will is all that matters. The debate between Kant and Mill is precisely whether our sense of duty can be compromised by appeals to consequences. Utilitarianism and Kant’s theory both have similarities, strengths and weaknesses. An instrumental good is something that helps you achieve something else. If there are only instrumental goods, then A is good because it helps bring the outcome of B, which is good because it helps bring the outcome of C, and so on, therefore our notion of goodness has no anchor. To some people this seems irrational, and they think goodness must have an anchor, they want to posit an "intrinsic" good somewhere. Both utilitarians and Kantians agree there is an intrinsic good. They also agree in being monists rather than pluralists about goodness. There is one and only one intrinsic good for both of them. If asked...
Words: 820 - Pages: 4
...According to him, people can perform good actions solely by good intentions without any considerations to consequences. In addition, one must follow the laws and the categorical imperative in order to act in accordance with and from duty. Several other philosophers such as Hannah Arendt discuss Kant’s moral philosophy. In her case study: “The Accused and Duties of a Law-Abiding Citizen”, Arendt examines how Adolf Eichmann’s actions conformed to Kant’s moral precepts but also how they ran of afoul to his conception of duty. In contrast, John Stuart Mill adopts a teleological view of moral philosophy. He exposes his view of consequentialism and utilitarianism to argue that an action is morally right only to the extent that it maximizes the aggregate happiness of all parties involved regardless of the motive. In the present paper, I will expose Kant’s moral precepts and the importance of duty in his Deontological principles. Then, I will evaluate Arendt’s report on Adolf Eichmann to analyze the ways in which his actions were in accordance to or against Kant’s moral philosophy. I will conclude my discussion with an evaluation of Mill’s approach to morality in order to examine the differences between his teleological philosophy and Kant’s ethical principles. Kant’s moral philosophy is based on the categorical imperative (CI), good will, and duty. According to the CI, it is an absolute necessity, a command that humans should accord with universalizable maxims to treat people as ends...
Words: 2811 - Pages: 12
...Utilitarianism PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY Utility was defined by Bentham as “the principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question.” The principle of utility is designed to promote the happiness of the individual or the community. The community can have no interests independent of or aggressive to the interests of the individual. Bentham's theory of utilitarianism asserts that actions and institutions should be judged by their contribution to utility, which is measured by calculating the relative contribution to happiness or pleasure, as opposed to pain. It has been pointed out that not only is pleasure difficult to measure, but that utilitarianism provides neither any guarantee of individual rights against majority interests, nor any means of weighing high levels of pleasure for a few against lower levels of pleasure for greater numbers. http://www.utilitarian.org/faq.html What is the utilitarian position on monogamy vs. polygamy, marriage and adultery, capitalism vs. socialism, the legalisation of cannabis etc? It is a common mistake to suppose that utilitarians have a fixed approach to controversial political issues. While utilitarians agree on what the criteria for good social policy are (being its conformability to utility), we freely and commonly disagree on which policies are actually useful. We know which goals we...
Words: 2060 - Pages: 9
...system morally unjustifiable according to Act Utilitarianism? According to Act Utilitarianism, the act that makes the greatest happiness to the group will be morally permissible. In fact, a person who is criminal will be judged by his ability to hurt other or committing a crime. The consequence of arresting the potential murderer will help to maximize victim and their family’s utility. Otherwise, if we choosing to refraining from arresting, murderer will be happy; and the victims will experience pain. In fact, one murderer can bring pain to many other victims; therefore, even if the system may be fallible Act utilitarianism says that it is morally justified to detain the potential murderers. How does this fallibility affect the appropriate description of the “maxim” describing the use of precrime for testing by Kant’s Categorical Imperative Procedure? I.e., should the maxim to be tested include acknowledgment of the system’s fallibility? State the appropriate maxim. The maxim of the use of precrime has stated that every potential murder should be put into jail to prevent possible crime. However, this maxim will be wrong if there is no crime that occurs. The fallibility failed the maxim because it stated that there is a chance that no crime occurs; the alternative is that the murder won’t kill anyone. In fact, putting a person in jail won’t help to decrease crime if crime doesn’t exist at the first place. Act Utilitarianism will say that the maxim should not be tested...
Words: 1159 - Pages: 5
...is very different from consequential theories of ethics like Utilitarianism where results matter more than obligations (oughts). One of the most notable examples of a deontological theory of ethics is Kantian Ethics. Kant rejected using results as a good way to guide actions. A notable feature is that, unlike Utilitarianism, he thought empirical evidence was an unreliable guide and that how we experience things came from the mind (a priori). ‘It is impossible to conceive of anything in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except good will’. A notable point is that, Kant took an absolute approach to morality and dismissed the idea of choices or consequences to solve a moral dilemma. A significant feature is that, Kant thought that the idea of moral oughts must come from within which he called ‘reason’. Since Kant believed reason is shared by all humans and is inherent in the universe, then logically we should come to the same conclusions about how to live using their reason. Additionally, with our reason, Kant identified that there were ‘prima facia’ duties- duties that are supreme to others. Another key characteristic is that, Kant’s deontology states that we experience a sense of duty/ obligation to others. This he called the categorical imperative; ‘you ought to behave in the categorical imperative because it is the moral law’. It differs from the hypothetical imperative because it exemplifies that we ‘work hard’ simply because we...
Words: 970 - Pages: 4
...universal principles regardless of the consequences. These universal principles could come from God, from human origins and nature, or from human reason. Instead of asking whether an action will result in a particular type of consequence, either good or bad, as is the case with utilitarianism and social contract, deontologists ask whether an action is consistent with a particular principle or rule. In Module 5, we studied the ethical deontological categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant. Kant does not believe the authority for duty-driven activity is God. Kant believes that human will is the highest authority. He believes this “highest authority" emanates from the use of human reason. In short, Perhaps Kant’s “duty” is not as absolute as one might suppose. Human ordained moral action is often subject to change according to personal preference. For Kant, the moral action conforms to a law of human origin and is absolute—it admits no exceptions, and it is universally binding. One is obligated to follow the commands of morality, whether one feels like it or not and despite personal consequences. One simply must follow the command out of respect for human reason. This forms the basis of Kant’s Categorical Imperative– if one can do the right thing, one...
Words: 391 - Pages: 2
...In both Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, the authors give several strong, well structured arguments on the composition of ethics. Largely, their works help to draw focus to two different explanations of what makes an action morally just as opposed to morally unjust through essentially opposite viewpoints. Despite a key difference between their philosophies, Kant and Mill contribute to an overall picture of the historical ethical argument. Chronologically, the first major philosopher, Immanuel Kant, presents an argument that is based upon solely “a priori” knowledge, or rather knowledge that does not come from experience. Kant explains that because we are all rational beings, we are able to separate ourselves from our current human condition and use our own ability to reason to see a broad picture of what is morally acceptable to others. Similarly, Kant finds that the only thing which is good without limitation is a good will; that is, it is the intention of an action that determines the moral validity of any claim, not the effects both foreseen and actual. Kant connects this idea of morality to the claim that humans should act out of duty instead of just what is according to duty. The difference between these two ideas, Kant argues, is that “according to duty” is acting in the right way only because of the negative consequences associated with not performing a morally correct action whereas “from duty” refers to the...
Words: 1983 - Pages: 8
...system is vital in every society. Yet, every moral system must deal with the major conflicting general moral issues: Consequentialism versus Non-consequentialism; Self versus Other-Interestedness; Act Utilitarianism versus Rule Utilitarianism; and Emotion versus reason as well as others. The approaches that are used to deal with these issues are up to the person which dilemma or situation is best fitted. In order to use one of these methods you have to understand these theories and their purposes. Immanuel Kant was a dominant philosopher of his time (1724-1804), the theory of Kant is the most difficult to understand but when understood is a simple approach. Kant argues that “the moral worth of an action is to be judged not by its consequences but by the nature of the maxim or principal that motivated the action”(Cahn pg. 98). The only actions that are correct are the ones that can serve as universal laws. People should act only on principles or maxims that can be universalized without contradiction. Another theory that is the theory of a leading English philosopher known as John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), his theory differentiates between Kant’s in that his concentrates on the consequences of an action rather than the motive for an action. Mill’s theory is known as utilitarianism, this view is grounded off that principle that morality is to act as so to produce as much happiness as possible, each person counting equally. Mill’s view of happiness is defined as pleasure with the...
Words: 1861 - Pages: 8
...Utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtues and torture Having to possibly torture four innocent civilians in order to save a few hundred from a terrorist attack, would it be okay to do so? The immediate response is usually yes, if you ask an average person, until they start thinking of the innocent people that have to be tortured, they take a step back and think harder about it. Put in the position of the torturer, I will attempt to answer the question. There are three sides we can use to look at the situation and come to a conclusion. Utilitarianism, in which we base our morality on the consequences of our action. Kantianism, in which morality can’t be based on consequences. And finally, we will look for the virtue in this situation. Utilitarianism is defined as a theory on which morality is determined by the consequences of an action or rule. In essence, the life and liberty of the innocents who are to be tortured, is nothing but a utility to save potentially thousands and prevent unhappiness. John Stuart Mill, follows a utilitarian approach to life. He says on utilitarianism, that our actions should promote happiness and or prevent unhappiness. He lays out a principle called the greatest happiness principle, in which, actions are right in proportion to their tendency to promote happiness, and wrong as they tend to unhappiness. Mill would think that it is required to torture the prisoners in order to serve the greatest happiness of those who would be saved, by preventing their...
Words: 1041 - Pages: 5
...for the sole purpose of obtaining information? The following paper will go in-depth on the moral standpoints of torture lite. From an Act Utilitarian viewpoint, torture lite can indeed be justified. I would say that an individual act of torture lite is justified when it will clearly produce more good than harm. Weigh the suffering of the victim against the odds of either deterring great amounts of crime or obtaining information vital to avoid large amounts of suffering for the greater good. Basically, this act can surely benefit a society just by placing a little bit of suffering on someone to better the society as a whole. This is how torture lite can be justified. On the other side, torture lite is condemned by Rule Utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism can be seen as a practice rule, which states that even though in some or most cases the rule wouldn't cause the greatest good, never following it would not cause the greatest good for the greatest number of people. For example the Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case...
Words: 1331 - Pages: 6
...dignity of man’ and sciences reduction of human beings to ‘specks of dust’. His rejection of many Enlightenment philosophies and work to reconcile others resulted in the philosophies that rocketed philosophy far beyond the debate between rationalists and empiricists. I will explore Kant’s views on what knowledge is and what is possible to know, which I will then compare these views to those held by sceptics and dogmatists. Similarly, I will discuss how Kant’s deviating epistemology led to the formation of his categorical imperative and views on morality, contrasting this moral code to the ones of the Hellenistic schools of thought. Lastly, I will deliberate on how Kant’s categorical imperative is nonoperational with the 20th and 21st century’s understanding of psychology and quantum physics. Kant believed that our understanding of the external world was two-part, basing our knowledge not only on our sense-perception experiences but on a priori concepts as well. Kant’s two-part epistemology is not at all similar with the mind-body theories of reality proposed by many enlightenment thinkers. Kant’s epistemology is derived of his criticisms of those he labeled dogmatists and sceptics. Kant’s sceptics, like Hume, thought that there was nothing to...
Words: 2123 - Pages: 9
