Mill vs kant Essay

The writings of John Stuart molar and Immanuel Kant present really polar root words concerning the honour sufficient Problem. Mills predilections ar referred to as Utilitarianism. In this system of thought, the basic touch is that rejoicing is the superlative terminus and fulfill at laws should be judged by their ability to provide the greatest gaiety to the greatest material body of multitude. Kant, the Deontologist, hoped that it is non the leave of the boutiveness that is important, but the acquition itself. He advocated a incorrupt command ground on reason.The basic estimates gear up in these philosophers writings lead me to understand Mills argument as the more plausible solution to the ethical problem. He believed that deterrent exampleity is associated with happiness and his idea that greater happiness for the greatest number of people should be the ultimate goal appears to be a worthy ambition. This would apply to social order and supports our ac cepted ideas that actions much(prenominal) as murder be wrong. thither argon two definitions included in his writing which explained his ideas more clearly to me.The initiative was The Greatest Happiness Principle, which was defined as actions are right in equaliser as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the drive away of happiness ( ) Happiness is defined as delectation and the absence of suffer( )Based on my hold experience it is plausible to believe close of us are pursuance amusement and attempting to avoid pain if these attempts are designed to provide the most happiness to the most people, it would appear we are attempting to be moral.This in like manner seems to be common sense, pleasure is good and pain is bad no matter of other beliefs most people do accept this. The effects on a guild, where people are attempting to provide the most pleasure for the most people, cannot be overlooked. This typewrite of society would be more reason ably and peaceful since everyone must consider the involve of others equal to their own. This idea that morality of an action is establish on the amount of happiness it produces for the most people can be understood and possibly studied.It appears that if sociologists or psychologists could resolve what makes people happy, we might be able to design social policies that would benefit society by increasing the happiness of a larger number of people. Mill recognizes that nigh kinds of pleasure are more in demand(predicate) and more valuable than others ( 37 text) and feels it would be ridiculous to believe that pleasure should yet be measured by bill and that his pleasure principal would turn serviceman into unhappy irrational animals only enkindle in less valuable pleasure.( text ) The deontological moral theory of Kant is very different from the Utilitarian theory of Mill, and in my belief much more laborious to determine and understand. He believes that whether or not a n action is right or wrong, moral or immoral does not depend on the consequences but on whether they fulfill our trading. (3) This was based on his belief that there was a supreme principle of morality that he referred to as the Categorical Imperative. (4) This philosophy also required that two questions be asked onward some(prenominal) action is taken. They are fuck I rationally will that everyone act as I purpose to act?There is only one matt imperative. It is Act only according to that apothegm by which you can at the equivalent time will that it should become a universal law. (Text) I believe he is arguing . if you dont think everyone should take this action, you should not. Does my action respect the goals of valet beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? (5) He also felt that the penury for your actions determined if you were acting as a good and moral person. It is the motivation based on morality which is important not the consequences of the acti on.To Kant giving money to charity because it is deductable on your income tax is not a moral action Mill would consider it moral because the happiness of some people is increased. Kant believed duty was more important than happiness and lugubriousness should not affect your willingness to do your duty. The things he believed and the questions he asked were based on the idea that moral rules are based on reason. I also retain barrier accepting his idea that if two people reasoning logically they will set out at the same determination, if we dont arrive at the same conclusion who is moral?These ideas led him to create a very ridged get wind of morality. Things that bollocks up the categorical imperative are of all time wrong, no acceptations, and things that are good are always good. I cannot accept the idea that we become moral as the result of reasoning particularly when he indicates that at some point we stop any type of reasoning and accept absolutes. It is difficult not to realize that much of what we view as moral is the result of what we have been taught by our parents and institutions in our society. He gives no consideration to any differences in societies.When I compared the ideas of Kant and Mill, I ferret out Mills work more plausible. I find Kants the idea that we become moral through reason very onerous to accept particularly when you consider how otherwise societies define morality. Mill bases his ideas on the very simple idea human stress pleasure and attempt to avoid pain therefore if your actions contribute to providing the most pleasure to the greatest number of people you are moral. Kant claimed not to be against happiness, but precept it as of much less vastness than duty.