It intended to make the normal persons understanding of morality have a deeper meaning in terms of philosophy. Mill creates a world where ones happiness can be judged. He believes that true happiness must be moral or intellectual in nature.
How to Write a Summary of an Article?
A Comparison between the Moral Philosophy of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant The discussion on Moral Philosophy and ethics has always been a controversial and very debatable topic, especially if we are to discuss each and every philosophy or ideology of every philosopher starting off from Greece up to the Post Modernists.
To be more specific, the author would like to dwell on the similarities and differences between the moral philosophies of Utilitarianism proponent John Stuart Mill and Idealist Immanuel Kant and to answer the question What are the key concepts in the moral theory of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant?
Furthermore, to be able to answer the specific question: What are the similarities and differences in the moral ideologies of Mill and Kant? The school of Utilitarianism had John Stuart Mill as one of its leading proponents. He further states that the true utilitarian interprets the greatest happiness principle to mean not my greatest happiness but the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Mill further states that utility would enjoin first, that laws and social arrangements should place the happiness or the interest of every individual, as nearly as possible in harmony with the interest of the whole; and secondly, that education and opinion which have so vast a power of human character, should so use that power as to establish in the mind of every individual an indissolvable association between his own happiness and the good of the whole…so that a direct impulse to promote the general good maybe in every individual one of the habitual motives of action.
This therefore gives Mill ground morality not just on personal pleasure but more on our obligation towards the people or on others. According to Mill, happiness is the center of moral life and the most desirable goal of human conduct. The said argument of Mill gives us a gray area in asking what would be the basis or sole basis of desirable?
Mill answers that that which is desirable is that we ought to choose. Happiness is something that we desire and it is our moral duty to pursue happiness. Mill was trying to build a moral system that was based on duty, by stating that which ought to do upon what in fact we already do.
Happiness for him is still the ultimate of human conduct. When Mill posited happiness as something that man should sought for out of duty, it cannot but prevent people from raising their counter-arguments with the query how can we prove that happiness is the true and desirable end of human life and conduct?
To answer the query, Mill posits and states that the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people does desire it. According to him, that which is visible means that something is capable of being seen, thus, that which is desirable automatically makes us desire it.
Such a conclusion falls under one of the logical fallacies because that which is seen, by means of the faculty of the mind means it is visible to our senses but that which is desirable, cannot and does not automatically become an end that we would ought to desire.
The fact lies that the human mind, man, as a person may desire a thing which is not desirable in the first place. Mill proposes that our pursuit is not limited to happiness alone but the pursuit of duty.
According to him, a sense of duty directs our moral thought. For him, the basis of morality is a powerful natural sentiment, a subjective feeling in our own minds and the conscientious feelings of mankind. A History of Philosophy. Mc Graw Hill Inc.Mill does propose for systems of laws to be derived from the happiness principle and then morality will depend on following the laws.
Mill’s philosophy can be changed over time according to circumstances unlike Kant’s (Andrea, ). Essay about Kant vs. Mill. Words Dec 4th, 7 Pages. Show More.
Kant vs Mills in Animal Rights In this essay I will cover the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. I will begin by covering Kant perspective of rational beings and his idea of a priori learning.
Moral Behavior: Aquinas and Aristotle vs. Kant Essay. Moral.
Mill does propose for systems of laws to be derived from the happiness principle and then morality will depend on following the laws.
Mill’s philosophy can be changed over time according to circumstances unlike Kant’s (Andrea, ). What they feel is the driving force behind morality is what differs because while Mill feels morality is all about gratification, Kant feels that morality is all about duty to humanity, which is a .
The doctrine in question sought to establish and constitute a supreme or absolute principle of morality. Kant disputes the existence of an ‘ethical system’, Ethics Kant vs Mill Essay Intro to Ethics Instructor Gallup Kant or Mill 14 November The topic .
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, which is usually defined as that which produces the greatest well-being of the greatest number of people, and in some cases, sentient animals.
Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, described utility as the sum of all pleasure that results from an action, minus the suffering of.