Immanuel Kant And John Stuart Mill - 2050 Words

The idea of an action to be intrinsically good is not as straight forward as proposed by Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill in The Groundswork and Utilitarianism respectively. Kant, in The Groundswork, and Mill, in Utilitarianism, come to different conclusions about what is intrinsically good, yet neither of them come to a valid explanation for the following reasons; Kant produces a narrow view focused entirely on having a good will, acting only based off of duties, and ignoring the outcomes of your actions, while Mill calculates intrinsic value based off of the greatest happiness principle which doesn’t take into account a good will. The correct and most reasonable explanation of what is intrinsically good is a combination of what both†¦show more content†¦If somebody does something in order to bring out a particular result this would be against the definition of a good will, because there is clear motivation beyond strictly duty. The third and final rule again grows on the former two and states that duties should be completed with full respect for the law. Kant proposes these three rules to create a general guideline that everyone can follow to make intrinsically good or moral decisions. He supports these rules for making moral decisions with explanations of why each one is required and why not having these in place would be detrimental to society. The overarching argument is that life without these rules in practice would be a society where everyone is trying to progress with disregard for others. When we install these rules for moral decision making we grow together as a society by collectively making intrinsically good decisions. While his argument for these having these three rules is fairly strong and consistent it doesn’t provide enough structure when faced with moral dilemmas that are in place because of rulings from the government. Coupled with the forced compliance with the restrictions the government installs, the biggest flaw for Kant is that if you have poor duties/maxims, from what you have been taught, and then pro ceed to act on these flawed duties, you would still be seen as intrinsically goodShow MoreRelatedImmanuel Kant And John Stuart Mill1261 Words   |  6 Pagesintentions/character that inspire the action, or the consequences that result from the action?† Second, the philosophers I am going to discuss throughout this paper are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Now before I tell you my answer to this question I am going to explain these who these two philosophers are and what their viewpoints on ethics are. Immanuel Kant was born in what is now Germany in 1724 and died in 1804 and was the type of philosopher to act out of duty. He believes that actions should be performedRead MoreImmanuel Kant And John Stuart Mill Essay2002 Words   |  9 Pagesmost widely known ethical philosophers are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. While they may have philosophized around the same time period, the philosophers have very different ideas about ethics and happiness. Immanuel Kant, author of Duty and Reason, believed in the morality of the good will and duty. He espoused that happiness is an irrelevancy insofar as fulfilling duty is the most important aspect of leading a moral life. Conversely, John Stuart Mill, who wrote, The Greatest Happiness PrincipleRead MoreJohn Stuart Mill And Immanuel Kant1387 Words   |  6 Pagesdifferent philosophers. Two of these philosophers are John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. Mill, in Utilitarianism defines happiness as pleasure without pain. He builds upon this idea of happiness when establishing his moral philosophy, stating that the action that would bring about the maximum amount of happiness is the most moral action. On the other hand, Kant establishes happiness as well-being and a satisfaction with one’s condition. Kant, however, argues that happiness is too fully based uponRead MoreJohn Stuart Mill And Immanuel Kant1786 Words   |  8 PagesJohn Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. They both had very different views when it came to the ethics of philosophy. They also though had some of the same views as each other. Both were concerned with the moral qualities of actions and choices of a person, but neither of them was much interested in about what makes a good person. They also different views and some of the same views when it came to lying. One thought it should never be done. The other thought it should be used as a last resort. FirstRead MoreImmanuel Kant And John Stuart Mill1206 Words   |  5 Pagesof morality, there is no right answer to dilemmas only different opinions. Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are philosophers with two different views on a person’s moral conscious. Kant believes morality is a duty that people should hold above their own happiness. On the other hand, Mill believes happiness is the goal of morality and the more happiness is acquired at the end is the most moral. According to Immanuel Kant, morality is a duty people must hold above their own happiness. For somethingRead MoreImmanuel Kant And John Stuart Mill948 Words   |  4 Pagesyou do it? Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill would give you strongly contrasting opinions. A person should not kill another to benefit five others. It would be a wrong thing to do, but Mill would disagree. Kant believed that good intentions count and that the morality of an action is determined by the intentions behind it rather than its consequences. Kant says that the consequences are irrelevant to assessments of moral worth, which contrasts sharply with Mill’s utilitarianism. Kant believed thatRead MoreJohn Stuart Mill And Immanuel Kant Essay1805 Words   |  8 Pagesphilosophers, Kant and Mill, to determine whether or not torture is ever ethical. John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, both proposed different philosophies, using deontological and teleological theories in ethics. John Stuart Mill used a teleological theory, which prioritized the end result of an action, based off the moral nature of the action itself, compared to the deontological theory proposed by Kant, which presented actions as obligations of an individual, leading them to act in a certain way. Mill usedRead MoreImmanuel Kant And John Stuart Mill998 Words   |  4 PagesTwo knowledgeable men, one says go right, the other, left. Who is right? Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill were both noted philosophers with opposing theories on what is moral. Each uphold different ways of observing what is right. The theory of utilitarianism held by Mill and universalism held by Kant has similarit ies and differences. Who stands correct, and who is mistaken? Utilitarianism is the belief that decisions should be made based on how much pleasure they bring (MacKinnon and FialaRead MoreJohn Stuart Mill vs. Immanuel Kant2163 Words   |  9 PagesJohn 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 whats 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 moralityRead MoreA Study Of Ethics By Immanuel Kant And John Stuart Mill992 Words   |  4 Pagesaround ethics. The court released Lavallee as innocent on the basis that she is medically ill with Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS). The two most renowned ethicists, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill would view this case differently. Kantianism is associated solely with Immanuel Kant. In comparison, John Stuart Mill, an opponent of Immanuel Kant’s ideas, uses a utilitarian approach. This essay will briefly give an overview of the case and the BWS. Then, it will show how both theories view the case.