Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill's Views on a Person's Morality Company. Although they both studied for the same purpose, their study methods were different. For Immanuel Kant, the key to achieving future good through morality is to separate law and duty from morality, while John Stuart Mill believes that it is the morality of utility that helps people achieve their future good. These two philosophers and their respective ideas created different and coherent perspectives. Their perspectives, influenced by experience (Mill) and reason (Kant), are the reason they have differences in their own ideas. Therefore, in this article, the two ideas will be compared in terms of similarities and one major difference. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Similarities Although both ideas and philosophers share a common goal, their ideas do not share many similarities. In fact, there are two similarities between these two ideas. The first is the lack of self-interest in moral action. The second is the universality of moral action. Mill and Kant believe that morality arises when a person abandons self-interest, with minor differences. According to Kant, due to human rationality, there are laws, moral laws to be more precise, and these laws are the factors that cause people to act morally. This also represents Kant's alignment with reason. However, when humans choose to act morally, and not just because of the legal factor, they act purely according to morality. In order to clarify this definition, Kant gives the example of the trader in his book Metaphysics of Morals. The example basically says that in a situation where a merchant is capable of deceiving customers, but chooses not to deceive them due to laws. Then the merchant is not a moral person because he chooses to act morally out of fear of consequences (Kant, p. 11). Just like in this situation, moral actions taken simply to obey the law are not moral because they contain a self-interest in not getting caught and avoiding punishment. According to Mill and the view of utilitarianism, any action taken is moral if the particular action aims to increase overall utility, or in other words happiness. Like Kant's reason, it represents experience. This utilitarian condition of morality makes it clear that general happiness in the world is what matters and that people should try to achieve it. Unlike Kant, Mill does not restrict self-interested actions as much as Kant. Mill has a calmer demeanor towards these actions, because in a situation where selfish action produces more utility, selfish action must be taken. In this scenario, self-interest also becomes moral interest. As Mill says in his book Utilitarianism; “He who saves a fellow man from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive is duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble; he who betrays the friend who trusts him is guilty of a crime” (Mill, p. .20). However, this does not mean that self-interest and utility are parallel concepts. This means that they can sometimes coincide and for Mill it is perfectly acceptable to choose a selfish action because it serves a higher purpose, morality. According to Kant, self-interest and moral actions cannot coincide.Even though they both differ in terms of the rigor of self-interest, they still place moral actions above selfish actions. The second similarity between Mill and Kant is the universality of morality. For both, their respective understanding of morality should apply to all human beings. For utilitarianism, the idea itself is intended to be universal because the main concern is overall happiness in the world. But Kant's idea has a few more layers when it comes to universalization. According to the categorical imperative, it is moral to take actions that are rational and possible for everyone. In Kant's words: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Kant, p. 30). Naturally, this universalization comes from Kant's confidence in human rationality. There is a delicate balance in Kant's thought. From what I understand, when people act rationally, they aim to achieve their own self-interest. However, when the rationality of humans is possible or conceivable for everyone, the universal and personal interest of each disappears. It leaves its place to general goodness and morality. There is no point in pursuing personal interest, because now everyone can have their personal interest, it is completely logical to pursue general happiness through rational and general actions, morality. This is why Kant's categorical imperative is similar to the universalization of utilitarianism, because it is moral to undertake actions that are rational and possible for all. Differences Unlike the similarities they have in common, the two ideas also have differences. However, there is one major difference, which shows why these two philosophers who aim to achieve morality and general goodness differ in terms of ideas. The main difference between them lies in their (Mill's and Kant's) view of means to ends. Kant says that when one undertakes an action, one must consider the consequences of the action as well as the moral end. In The Metaphysics of Morals, Kant says this: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of others, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means." » (Kant, p.36). Basically, Kant argues that no matter how noble or moral the outcome of an action is, if it creates something immoral in the process, then that action is not moral at all. On the other hand, we must always consider the end above the means. As long as an action helps the world become a better place, or in other words a happier place, the action taken is not important because the outcome is always moral. The problem of superheroes is the perfect example to show the difference between Mill's understanding of morality and Kant's, as he discusses what happens to the world if superheroes exist. This superhero example basically says that while saving the world, they destroy many buildings, cities, constructions and cause the death of many people. Naturally, superheroes try to save the world because of their pure morality, without self-interest. However, Kant would disagree with their morality because in the process of protecting people, they killed a large number of them. As a result, they lost their morality because they did not consider the means and focused on the end. Unlike Kant, for Mill their actions would always be moral because they focus on the end. If they didn't save the world, then everyone would be dead. This is why the views of Kant and Mill cannot meet when it comes to.

Essay / Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill's Views on a Person's Morality Company. Although they both studied for the same purpose, their study methods were different. For Immanuel Kant, the key to achieving future good through morality is to separate law and duty from morality, while John Stuart Mill believes that it is the morality of utility that helps people achieve their future good. These two philosophers and their respective ideas created different and coherent perspectives. Their perspectives, influenced by experience (Mill) and reason (Kant), are the reason they have differences in their own ideas. Therefore, in this article, the two ideas will be compared in terms of similarities and one major difference. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Similarities Although both ideas and philosophers share a common goal, their ideas do not share many similarities. In fact, there are two similarities between these two ideas. The first is the lack of self-interest in moral action. The second is the universality of moral action. Mill and Kant believe that morality arises when a person abandons self-interest, with minor differences. According to Kant, due to human rationality, there are laws, moral laws to be more precise, and these laws are the factors that cause people to act morally. This also represents Kant's alignment with reason. However, when humans choose to act morally, and not just because of the legal factor, they act purely according to morality. In order to clarify this definition, Kant gives the example of the trader in his book Metaphysics of Morals. The example basically says that in a situation where a merchant is capable of deceiving customers, but chooses not to deceive them due to laws. Then the merchant is not a moral person because he chooses to act morally out of fear of consequences (Kant, p. 11). Just like in this situation, moral actions taken simply to obey the law are not moral because they contain a self-interest in not getting caught and avoiding punishment. According to Mill and the view of utilitarianism, any action taken is moral if the particular action aims to increase overall utility, or in other words happiness. Like Kant's reason, it represents experience. This utilitarian condition of morality makes it clear that general happiness in the world is what matters and that people should try to achieve it. Unlike Kant, Mill does not restrict self-interested actions as much as Kant. Mill has a calmer demeanor towards these actions, because in a situation where selfish action produces more utility, selfish action must be taken. In this scenario, self-interest also becomes moral interest. As Mill says in his book Utilitarianism; “He who saves a fellow man from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive is duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble; he who betrays the friend who trusts him is guilty of a crime” (Mill, p. .20). However, this does not mean that self-interest and utility are parallel concepts. This means that they can sometimes coincide and for Mill it is perfectly acceptable to choose a selfish action because it serves a higher purpose, morality. According to Kant, self-interest and moral actions cannot coincide.Even though they both differ in terms of the rigor of self-interest, they still place moral actions above selfish actions. The second similarity between Mill and Kant is the universality of morality. For both, their respective understanding of morality should apply to all human beings. For utilitarianism, the idea itself is intended to be universal because the main concern is overall happiness in the world. But Kant's idea has a few more layers when it comes to universalization. According to the categorical imperative, it is moral to take actions that are rational and possible for everyone. In Kant's words: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Kant, p. 30). Naturally, this universalization comes from Kant's confidence in human rationality. There is a delicate balance in Kant's thought. From what I understand, when people act rationally, they aim to achieve their own self-interest. However, when the rationality of humans is possible or conceivable for everyone, the universal and personal interest of each disappears. It leaves its place to general goodness and morality. There is no point in pursuing personal interest, because now everyone can have their personal interest, it is completely logical to pursue general happiness through rational and general actions, morality. This is why Kant's categorical imperative is similar to the universalization of utilitarianism, because it is moral to undertake actions that are rational and possible for all. Differences Unlike the similarities they have in common, the two ideas also have differences. However, there is one major difference, which shows why these two philosophers who aim to achieve morality and general goodness differ in terms of ideas. The main difference between them lies in their (Mill's and Kant's) view of means to ends. Kant says that when one undertakes an action, one must consider the consequences of the action as well as the moral end. In The Metaphysics of Morals, Kant says this: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of others, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means." » (Kant, p.36). Basically, Kant argues that no matter how noble or moral the outcome of an action is, if it creates something immoral in the process, then that action is not moral at all. On the other hand, we must always consider the end above the means. As long as an action helps the world become a better place, or in other words a happier place, the action taken is not important because the outcome is always moral. The problem of superheroes is the perfect example to show the difference between Mill's understanding of morality and Kant's, as he discusses what happens to the world if superheroes exist. This superhero example basically says that while saving the world, they destroy many buildings, cities, constructions and cause the death of many people. Naturally, superheroes try to save the world because of their pure morality, without self-interest. However, Kant would disagree with their morality because in the process of protecting people, they killed a large number of them. As a result, they lost their morality because they did not consider the means and focused on the end. Unlike Kant, for Mill their actions would always be moral because they focus on the end. If they didn't save the world, then everyone would be dead. This is why the views of Kant and Mill cannot meet when it comes to.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch