First, I will talk about the theories and views held by philosopher Immanuel Kant. Download file to see previous pages In other words, he says that one must act in a manner that one would expect others to act towards oneself. So it would appear that not only is does my ferret experience more pleasure more frequently than I do, but he also experiences less suffering. Also, rule utilitarianism considers the law and fairness in finally making an act which is said to be right Bennagen, 2000. For instance, should we ask them what they would like to eat or drink and maximize their pleasure, especially if they outnumber us and are much more excited about having something than we parents or adults are about their having it? This brings me to the possibility of the rational application these perceptions. Before his point can be stated, however, the foundations of his point must first be explored. Therefore, Hill's actions were not justified, because killing cannot be a universal law.
One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Secondly, many people criticize utilitarianism for its inadequacy of common sense Bennagen, 2000. But, without this duty, one must act on an inclination, using reason, that a particular action is morally good. He makes a drastic shift from the descriptive claim to the prescriptive without sufficiently explaining the relation between them. The reasons for the thief stealing from the wealthy man doesnt matter.
He further states that the true utilitarian interprets the to mean not my greatest happiness but the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Kant's theories rest entirely, however, on the ability of competent social actors with an intuitive grasp of normative social interaction - apparently he chooses to ignore the crazies or supposes that the will be controlled by the more competent of social actors! I disagree with this proposition, alongside modern philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. If, however, I treat each resident as an intelligent and valuable individual worthy of respect, I then treat him or her as ends in themselves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Due to this limitation, Mill believes few humans would… 1910 Words 8 Pages Kant vs. Kant deciphers his ethical questions by examining a persons motivation for performing an act regardless of the consequences.
Application of the principles is central to creating universal ethics, yet it seems that we cannot prove rational application of the principles and thus fall short of gaining universal consensus on what those should be. Another example is the fact that, citizens have to maintain a certain driving speed, however, an individual is running late for a qualifying exam in medicine, which is a make or break exam for him, would it be considered as not doing his duty if he went a little speedy just to make it to his exam, which is a personal duty for him in the first place. Differences Differences noted by Dr. It doesn't degrade humans to the level of animals because Mill argues that the quality of pleasure is more important that the quantity of pleasure. A person should not kill another to benefit five others.
Topic 2 Compare and contrast Mill and Kant on the question of moral obligation. This means that instead of his family being happy being they were well guarded, other people were terribly disappointed, disturbed, and definitely did not experience happiness as should be the outcome of utilizing utilitarianism as a technique in making ethical decisions Bennagen, 2000. This belief in freedom and responsibility causes one to act according to duty, and not according to desires. Kant and Mill Kant does not disregard practical anthropology in the Foundations because he believes it is unimportant. For instance, how will individual duties would be defined Bennagen, 2000? This only proves that an act may not always bring in happiness through the use of utilitarianism in carrying out an act Bennagen, 2000. For example, suppose that one has to make a choice between lying to someone or being killed. In this way of thinking, ethics are based on the maximization of pleasure.
Duties imply rights, and rights imply legitimate expectations. And without the empirical evident that he himself relies on so heavily in other arguments, then he cannot prove the universality of ethics. Like earlier philosophers, Kant differentiated modes of thinking into analytic and synthetic propositions. Explain the difference between act classical and rule versions of utilitarianism. The pleasures are of different quality and therefor, not the same. He tries to jump from what is the case descriptive claim , to what should be the case prescriptive ; however, he shows no necessary connection between the two. God's essence is his existence because we cannot imagine God without him existing, therefore it is his essence.
Mill says that an act is right as long as it gives rise to pleasure or relieves pain. This pure human reason works without the influence of human emotions and desires. Yet under Mill's theory of consequences, since the greater good was served, then the act is morally okay. Both appeal to consequences in the application of their first principle to the derivation of duties, Kant in considering the consequences of a maxim's becoming a universal law of nature and Mill in considering the consequences of a certain kind of action e. For example, if one wants to have an abortion, applying the Categorical Imperative we see that if everyone committed abortion, the human race would soon cease to exist, which is a contradiction and is impossible to will. This may result in happiness for the consumers and the management; however typically, this will not bring in pleasure to the customer service representative being complained about Bennagen, 2006.
Mill Philosophers Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill both have different views on moral worth and Utilitarianism, which states that an action is morally right if it produces more good for all people affected or suffering from the action. It is more difficult to satisfy myself than it is for my ferret to satisfy himself. Kant claims that it is a contradiction by the Categorical Imperative to not help others, for then one would not have the aid of others when one needs it. I could do whatever I wanted, so long as I increase the pleasures or decrease the pains of society! 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. His Kantianism premise is a deontological moral theory which claims that the right action in any given situation is determined by the categorical imperative, which he calls the Supreme Principle.
Hume's second objection: Reason doesn't motivate moral action. Applying the Categorical Imperative to this decision would seem to dictate that becoming a philosophy teacher is immoral, which is absurd. Immanuel Kant, author of Duty and Reason, believed in the morality of the good will and duty. It is to this, the Categorical Imperative, that we owe our obedience through duty. This diverse spectrum of theories includes consequentialism, more specifically, utilitarianism, which is a consequence-based theory that was first developed by Jeremy Bentham and later broadened by John Stuart Mill, to Kantianism, or deontology, a duty-based theory developed by Immanuel Kant. The Nazi's come to the door and ask you if you're hiding Jews in a cellar. Emotions, however, cannot be commanded.
This is a criticism of Rule Utilitarianism because you have to think about rules that would maximize happiness that you are not currently following or did not follow, that could have maximized happiness in general. I will then move on to his idea of categorical imparaitive. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. However, maxims can also be right provided that it is possible to universalize them. Let us compare, for instance, myself to my ferret. How can Mill really answer this question, given that he only says that we need to differentiate between noble and base pleasures? You need to point out inconsistencies within his system. Kant and Mill Ideologies According to John Stuart Mill, the fundamental principle of morality refers to the principle of utility, or Greatest Happiness Principle, which asserts that individuals tend to act in a manner that is most likely to derive maximum pleasure, satisfaction, and happiness to a wide range of people LaFave 1.