John Stuart Mill Compare And Contrast

1919 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Kantian vs utilitarian ethics

Comparison and Contrast of Kant’s and Mill’s arguments on their respective principles

The utilitarian philosophy of John Stuart Mill and the Kantian theory could not be any more opposite as far as philosophy is concerned. While utilitarianism is a consequential position that is solely focused on the outcomes of actions, Kant is mainly concerned with the reason behind the occurrence of an action irrespective of the outcome of the action. Though both theories appear complex, they have sufficient reasons to act in their favor. However, a deeper analysis of the two theories reveals that utilitarian philosophy is inferior to the Kantian theory.
John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian philosophy states that an action is good if it maximizes the good for …show more content…

Earlier stated, utilitarian ideology can be summed up as a philosophy that seeks cognitive actions aimed towards bringing greatest happiness for many people. Whereas Mill believed on a notion that each and every individual desires his personal happiness particularly through consideration of his level of happiness, Kant argues against this idea by stating that; "we find that the more a cultivated reason devotes itself to the aim of enjoying life and happiness, the further does man get away from true contentment" (Kant 221). Alternatively, Kant had a stern belief that the reason's purpose is to offer guidance to the will. He further argues that; if a man’s reason always guided him towards seeking pleasures, then he would eventually end up being unhappy. Therefore, he went to the extent of claiming that; “true function should be to come up with a will that is not only useful as a means to an end, but also good in itself" (Kant 221). On this basis, Kant's argument seems incredibly convincing as compared to Mill's utilitarian perspectives since he has the capability of proving that happiness does not prevail as the real function of

Show More
Related

  • Compare And Contrast Marlart Mill And Karl Marx

    949 Words  | 2 Pages

    The theories of John Stewart Mill and Karl Marx, although vastly different, share the main idea of utilitarianism in the most basic sense. Utilitarianism promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Both philosophers believed that the people should be empowered when it came to the governing of society, and that the greatest threat to society is oppression.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill Vs Kierkegaard Essay

    1200 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Categorical Imperative Theory: The Ideas Of Kant's Thought And Theory

    1053 Words  | 3 Pages

    Utilitarianism’s purpose, according to Mill, is to make what the individual subconsciously desires and make that desire a reality. If an individual doesn’t know what options he or she has, they don’t have the capacity to make the best decision. Mill emphasizes this by relating happiness to the visibility of an object. If an object isn’t visible, then to most, the object doesn’t exist, as is the same with happiness. Mill’s argument sheds light on the individual more so than the group in his interpretation of Utilitarianism. As I stated previously, Mill doesn’t quantify his interpretation of Utilitarianism. Instead, concepts such as morality, are based internally as opposed to externally. Everyone has the potential to decide for themselves whether their actions are moral or not. Through doing this, Mill addressed most of the criticisms toward Utilitarianism. However, Kant’s Categorical Imperative acts more as a decision rule for action instead of universal

    Read More

  • Mill’s Objection to Kant’s Moral Theory

    1356 Words  | 3 Pages

    If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill Ethical Analysis

    552 Words  | 2 Pages

    Kant and Mill both try to decide whether the process of doing something is distinguished as right or wrong. They explain that right or wrong is described as moral or immoral. In the writings of Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals Kant says that you only need to “act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 30). Kant then states that a practical principal for how far the human will is concerned is thereby a categorical imperative, that everyone then is necessarily an end, and the end in itself establishes an objective principal of the will and can aid as a practical law (36). Mill on the other hand has the outlook that the greatest happiness principle, or utilitarianism, is that happiness and pleasure are the freedom from pain (Mill, 186). With these principles we will see that Kant and Mill correspond and contradict each other in their moral theories.

    Read More

  • A Comparison of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant's Ethical Theories

    3195 Words  | 7 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Exploring Utilitarianism: A Comparative Analysis

    1013 Words  | 3 Pages

    What is utilitarianism? Through philosophy, John Stuart Mill aims to answer this question. He asserts that one’s actions must be right if the greatest number of individuals are pleased with the greatest good. The theory of utilitarianism is straightforward. One must always chose the action that will contribute to the greatest good. In any instance, one must chose the action that will promote the greatest good for the greatest number. This principle allows one to decipher any action that may be considered right or wrong. On the contrary, Immanuel Kant and Kwame Appiah challenge the method of utilitarianism as a means to determine which rights countries should enforce. Kant asserts that human rights are individual and universal, whereas Appiah focuses on cosmopolitanism.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Stuart Mill

    1161 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.

    Read More

  • Mill's Utilitarianism

    984 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...ry. Some may reject it and have the objection that utilitarianism does not provide an effective way of life. Those who object may say that this moral theory is not good or specific enough, lacks a mention of full human potential and capabilities, and fails to address the special moral values of humans. Mill provides an effective response to those who doubt utilitarianism, and states that there is only one end (happiness) that humans aim for and that humans and humans alone are the only ones who can judge and experience all pleasures and qualities of life.

    Read More

  • Philosophy: John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism

    1314 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism

    1321 Words  | 3 Pages

    Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, and they are not satisfied with physical pleasures, but they strive to achieve pleasure of the mind as well.

    Read More

  • Kant vs. Mill: Human Rights and Utilitarianism

    1725 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons, regardless of their individual desires or partial interests.

    Read More

  • Euthanasia and Ethics: Kant and Stewart Mill

    950 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Stewart Mill has a much different ethical view that Kant. Mill is a Utilitarian, which in the book is described that, “It claims that the morality of an action is determined by how well it promotes ‘utility’, which is defined as the greatest good for the greatest number” (417). This ethical view measures the morality of an act by what the outcome is. If it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number it is moral. This is also referred to as the greatest happiness principle. Happiness being pleasure and the absence of pa...

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill's Considerations On Representative Government

    557 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Considerations on Representative Government, Mill denounces the idea that a despotic monarchy headed by a good despot is the best form of government. Mill goes on to share the reason behind this idea. The reason lies in the supposition that a distinguished individual with absolute power will ensure that all the duties of government is performed intelligently and virtuously. Mill does not disagree with this belief but he finds the need to address it. He states that an “all-seeing” monarch rather than a “good monarch” is needed. The despot would need to be informed correctly and in detail at all time, and be able to oversee every division of administration with effective attention and care in the twenty-four hours per day he has. If not, the

    Read More

  • A Critical Analysis of John Stuart Mill’s "On Liberty"

    1403 Words  | 3 Pages

    An individual does not make a community, and a community does not make a society. In order to have a functioning and prosperous society, one must relinquish some free will in return for protection. According to John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, there are certain rights of the individual which the government may never possess. Centuries after the publication of Mill’s Essay, the court case Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta l , 546 U.S. 418 (2006) challenged the protective role of government against the free exercise of religion. In this instance, Mill would agree with the court ruling because, like his views concerning free exercise of will, government restriction and majority rule, both the court ruling and Mill’s ideals are concerned for the best interests of the individual rather than for the greater good of society.

    Read More

More about John Stuart Mill Compare And Contrast

Open Document