Kant And Mill A Comparison Of Ethical Theories Philosophy Essay

Kant And Mill A Comparison Of Ethical Theories Philosophy Essay throne Mills Utilitarianism and Immanuel Kants Fundamental Principle of the Metaphysic of Morality present the both philosophers divergent views on the field of honourable philosophy. Mills Utilitarianism is a much refined estimable speculation compared to Kants breakdown of the metaphysics and its use in proving what is right and what is wrong. Kant employs his corroboration of the subsistence of metaphysics as a discipline in his ethical philosophy. if a law is to have moral force, i.e., to be the basis ofan obligation, it must carry with it absolute necessity. (Kant preface). This dictum forms the base for Kants ethical system. Mill disputes Kants assertion that our moral force must be set by an obligation. Instead, Mill argues that humans are driven by a desire to be happy.Immanuel Kant utilized practical causeing in his moral theory and suggests that there exists only one moral obligation categorical imperat ive. He states, Act only on that maxim whereby thou preemptst at the same clipping will that it should become a universal law (Kant second section). This obligation is derived from the nonion of duty, and describes the categorical imperatives as the demands of moral decree, and further emphasizes that an individuals behavior ought to live up to the moral laws. These categorical imperatives should be the constitution governing all men they should be the principles of human life.Kant argues that all ethical duties inherently expected of humans al-Qaida from these categorical imperatives, and it systematically follows that human obligations are put to the test. He goes on to state that employing these imperatives, an individual regarded as rational could be able to achieve detail ends using certain means. Kants categorical imperative forms the basis of the deontological ethics. The fundamental principle of the metaphysics of morals postulates that moral law is a base or foundation of reason in itself and it does not have to be influenced by other contingent factors. The biggest flaw of Kants moral theory is that it fails to mention the role of human desire in the choices individuals make. Kant theory succeeds only in highlighting moral versus immoral human actions, and specifically makes it easier in making choices that exclusively involves evil versus good. It does not provide shrewdness into what an individual should do in case he or she is faced by two evils, and he or she has to make a choice amongst the two. For instance, what does one do when faced with the exclusive choices of either lying or killing? Mills ethical theory offers an insight.Mills utilitarian ethical theory provides a rule that illuminates this quandary. Utilitarian theory supports Machiavellis the end justifies the means according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality (Mill ch II). The superior enjoyment principle proposes that humans should inherently choose the option that gives them the most happiness. Mill constructs a world where the happiness of humans is judged. Mill believes that the best happiness is achieved when everyone is happy the absence of suffering and pain. He believes that true happiness must be moral or intellectual in nature. Physical happiness does not qualify as true happiness. Happiness is greater than feeling of contentment.Mill talks of different forms of happiness, high and low happiness. When an individual experiences both forms of happiness, he or she develops a preference of one over the other. Mill opines that simple pleasures are preferred by individuals who have not experienced greater ones. Nevertheless, he distillery holds that higher pleasures are really valued. Because happiness predetermines human desires, it is only logical that our actions are determined by will will to be happy. Mill thus far posits that the realization of human desire can at times be subjec tive to the will of an individual or an individuals habit. Mills utilitarian therefore covers more on human motives as compared to mere indulgence. Every intrinsic human desire is a derivative of elementary human desires to be happy or achieve gratification. Sometimes the pursuit of basic human pleasures may result in pain as a result of sacrifices humans consciously or subliminally make. Such sacrifices for the sake of happiness in the end are fully justified.A significant difference between Mill and Kant, based on the two writings, is the gradation of ethics. Under Kants metaphysics of science, an individual can be regarded as morally upright while still being selfish. Under Mills utilitarian, an individual cannot be morally right if he or she is selfish since Mills ethical theory requires humans to extend happiness to others. All honour to those who can hold for themselves the personal enjoyment of life, when by such renunciation they contribute worthily to increase the amount o f happiness in the world (Mill ch II). Kant negates the utilitarian idea by stating that there exists a divergence between desires and ethics and that contemplations of human rights temper estimations of cumulative utility. Kant holds that everything in existence possesses a price or a dignity. He adds that whatever possesses a price can be easily replaced by something else of the similar value as it, but whatever has a dignity can never be replaced.Both philosophers have deep thought on the issue of morality. Mill has his thoughts based on utilitarian grounds, which is an elaborate system that revolves somewhat happiness of people. It hypothesizes that an individual ought to act in a way that ensures the happiness of those around them. Kant has his philosophy of giving morality a good versus bad angle. He, on the other hand, hypothesizes that reasoning and human nature should be the determinants of morality and not human desires. Morality is the root of human interaction and witho ut it, humans would not name right from wrong. Morality is very important but between the two philosophers John Mill offers an upgraded version of ethical philosophy that is more elaborate and practical.