However, Kant’s moral philosophy view is not without its problems. This is because the good will is not always inherently good without being qualified despite what Kant may claim. This can be seen as even if a person is an altruist who always tries to do their duty they can end up generating misery instead of pleasure. For example, say that you are going out and stealing from the rich to give to those less fortunate. In doing this you are only trying to help people and follow a duty to aid your fellow man, and it does not matter what consequences you may face due to your actions as you are supposed to have a good will even if it will get you into trouble. For a more extreme example say you are hiding Jews in your attic in Nazi Germany. The …show more content…
His moral theory states that the rightness of an action is determined by its end or consequence, which means that its moral obligation is based upon what is a good or desirable end, or consequence, to be accomplished. “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest-happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Bentham & Mill pg. 99). This means that Mill’s moral theory states that the consequences of an action are the only standard of right, what promotes happiness or pleasure, and wrong, promotes unhappiness or pain, not the rights or moral opinions involved in that circumstance. This opposed to Kant’s deontological moral system concerned with obligation, one’s duty, which is derived from reason rather than in the maximization of some good resulting consequence. Mill’s ethical view is very intuitive and it links pleasure with morality instead of possibly setting pleasure in opposition of morality. “The theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded – namely, that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain” (Bentham & Mill pg. 99). His utilitarian principles provide organization to a person’s intuitive morals, such as murder being morally wrong. It also follows people’s common sense belief that pain is bad and pleasure is good which is universal in all people even among those who may have other different and conflicting moral beliefs.
The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong if they tend to deliver despondency or torment. Mill believes that the principle of utility is the perfect way to evaluate ethics is through the individual's happiness. People who have the opportunity to chose or purse there own form of happiness usually makes really wise ethical decisions, which improves society. I agree with mill’s theory because happiness always produces good things, which would very beneficial to the
Mill grew up under the influences from his father and Bentham. In his twenties, an indication of the cerebral approach of the early Utilitarians led to Mill’s nervous breakdown. He was influential in the growth of the moral theory of Utilitarianism whose goal was to maximize the personal freedom and happiness of every individual. Mill's principle of utility is that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Utilitarianism is the concept that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote happiness for the greatest number of individual. He believes that Utilitarianism must show how the conversion can be made from an interest in one’s own particular bliss to that of others. John Stuart Mill also states that moral action should not be judged on the individual case but more along the lines of “rule of thumb” and says that individuals ought to measure the outcomes and settle on their choices in view of the consequence and result that advantages the most people. Mill believes that pleasure is the only wanted consequence. Mill supposes that people are gifted with the capacity for conscious thought, and they are not happy with physical delights, but rather endeavor to accomplish the joy of the psyche too. He asserts that individuals want pleasure and reject
Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as follows:According to the Greatest Happiness Principle … The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments.Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas may be identified: (1) The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A "good" man is one who considers the other man's pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own.
Kant conveys his beliefs by introducing the idea of a moral law. He believes there is a moral law that is to be upheld by everyone. The moral law is an unconditional principle that defines the standards of right action. Good will is a form of moral law because it’s a genuine attitude behind an action. Anything that is naturally good is morally good which sums up to be good will. Actions of good will do the right thing for the reason of simply being the right thing to do. There is no qualification, benefactor or incentive its good will and no personal gain, inclination, or happine...
In chapters two and three of Mill’s Utilitarianism writings he chose to discuss Utilitarianism’s meaning and principles of Utility. As for the definitions of utilitarianism, Mill described it as, “The Greatest Happiness Principle” (Mill 10). Furthermore, utilitarianism seeks to promote the most happiness for the greater good (Mill 10). In accordance to that, actions are considered good actions if they promote happiness (Mill 10). As Mill describes the definition of Utilitarianism, he also discusses the definition of happiness. Mill describes happiness as, “Intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Mill 10). In other words, Mill believes that if someone is performing an action
John Stuart Mill claims that people often misinterpret utility as the test for right and wrong. This definition of utility restricts the term and denounces its meaning to being opposed to pleasure. Mill defines utility as units of happiness caused by an action without the unhappiness caused by an action. He calls this the Greatest Happiness Principle or the Principle of Utility. Mill’s principle states that actions are right when they tend to promote happiness and are wrong when they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is defined as pain and the lack of pleasure. Therefore, Mill claims, pleasure and happiness are the only things desirable and good. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism claims that act...
There were some moral problems that Mill ran into with his principle. One of the first problems was that actions are right to promote happiness, but wrong as they sometimes tend to produce unhappiness. By moving a victim from a mangled car would be the noble thing to do but what if pulling him from the wreck meant killing him. He intended to produce a happy outcome, but in the end he created an unhappy situation. Utilitarianism declares that men can live just as well without happiness. Mill says yes, but men do not conduct their lives, always seeking happiness. Happiness does not always mean total bliss.
After reading the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, I would say I agree with Kant’s philosophies on morals to a certain extent. I think he makes a lot of good points, but I don’t completely agree that there are never any exceptions to the categorical imperative in deciding what is moral. The way I understood what he was saying is that for something to be truly moral it must be done out of duty, and not for desires or emotions. He says the universal imperative of duty is “Act as though the maxim of your action were to become, through your will, a universal law of nature” (24). This to me means that if it were okay for everyone to act a certain way all the time then the action would be moral. Kant says that actions that are done for a
What are, and what are the differences between, judgments of perception and judgments of experience for Kant?
Kant’s main focus is on the motives behind someone’s action, rather than the good or bad that may come from that action. To Kant, good will is the core worth of an action. In other words, even if a good will does not turn out to perform it intended action, or good outcome, it can still be considered a good will if the motives behind the action are good in itself. Good will is good in itself. Finally, good will acts alongside with the universal law – one should act as if his or her will was to become the universal law. Kant says that our actions are moral if we would want it to become a universal law, not just for ourselves, but for everyone.
Overall, Kantian ethics are based on duty, and the duty is to perform universally good actions. For this form of ethics, good will is defined as the good. Kant highlights that “a good will is good…[because]
Kant believes that morality is a priori, which means it’s based on reason rather than experiences. We cannot derive moral laws from experiences because experiences vary widely from person to person and in order to apply to everyone they must be universal and objective. He gives the example of God as the ideal moral being. We know of his
Kantianism, which is derived from the moral philosopher Immanuel Kant, states that the only thing that is truly good is a good will. A good will is one that acts because of its duty. Kantians asks two main questions. The first question is, “What is unconditionally good?”. When answering this question, Kantians weed out all other possible answers. In his book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant states that, “Understanding, wit, judgment1 and the like, whatever such talents of mind' may be called, or courage, resolution, and perseverance in one's plans, as qualities of temperament, are undoubtedly good and desirable for many purposes, I but they can also be extremely evil and harmful if the will which is to make use of these gifts of nature, and whose distinctive constitution" is therefore called character, is not good (Kant, p 7).” For example, power is not unconditionally good because you can abuse it. Also, money cannot be unconditionally good because you can buy bad things with it. Happiness is not unconditionally good because bad things can make you happy. The only thing that is unconditionally good is a good ...
Kant may have some valid points on the ideas of demands, and their reasonability, however I find it extremely difficult to execute these thoughts in a naturally occurring situation. Kant, for example, believes lying, regardless of the situation, is absolutely immoral and unacceptable. There are instances however, that I would find it completely acceptable to lie in and I would not consider myself an immoral person for doing so. Blackburn goes on to explain how ethics focuses on the “impartial” and “universal” views of morality and I find what he says to be very intriguing. Blackburn explains that we should all be pulling our own weight, but then goes into detail about circumstances in which we break this wall and are forced to help those inferior
This principle promotes a life of more pleasure than pain by choosing actions that produce more happiness. These are conscious actions made that follow a life of utility and act in accordance with the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” Though Mill’s critics would argue that Utilitarianism is not a reasonable foundation for morality by not fulfilling a life of happiness, creating selfish or expedient people, and reducing human experience to animals, I would have to disagree. This principle promotes happiness and pleasure for all, along with aiding individuals to be less selfish, and an even slate for people of all characters. I find the “Greatest Happiness Principle” to be a relevant and altruistic foundation of morality. There is an emphasis on lives containing more pleasure than pain under the rule that one person cannot put their own happiness above others. I think a type of morality such as this would be more successful than other forms of morality because it wants every human life to be a life filled with more pleasure than pain. I see this as an appropriate foundation because it promotes good over bad, which is ultimately the function of morality as a whole. As written by Raymond Plant, “Since the principle of the individual is to try to satisfy his desires…the principle of society should be to try to advance the satisfactions of those who belong to the society…”