Marx And Mills John Stuart Mill suggests that a person’s ethical decision-making process should be based solely upon the amount of happiness that the person can receive. Although Mill fully justifies himself, his approach lacks certain criteria for which happiness can be considered. Happiness should be judged, not only by pleasure, but by pain as well. This paper will examine Mill’s position on happiness, and the reasoning behind it. Showing where there are agreements and where there are disagreements will critique the theory of Utilitarianism.
This enterprise yields some powerful ideas. (1) Some of the relationships studied have great interest, numerical identity in particular. Indeed, seeing Kant discuss it here, one wonders why he did not include it in the Table of Categories. (2) Kant gives a solid argument for the necessity of a sensible element in representations, something not found elsewhere in the Transcendental Analytic.The Transcendental Analytic of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason ends with a little appendix on what Kant calls the Amphiboly of the Concepts of Reflection. As an appendix, the passage is more than a little curious.
In this essay I will explain Kant's reasoning behind his statement that the only true good, without qualification, is the good will, and consequentially determine whether his idea of good varies from the Platonic ideal of goodness. In Kant's development of his theory he relied upon the faculty of human reason to demonstrate his hypotheses. He begins by inquiring as to the ultimate purpose of human reason. He considers for a moment that man's reason exists to bring happiness, however he quickly nullifies this assumption with a common sense judgment: We find that the more cultivated reason devotes itself to the aim of enjoying life and happiness, the further does man get away from true contentment. .
From this idea of “a priori” concepts, Kant begins his thesis with the notion that the only thing in the world that is a qualified good is the “good will”, even if its efforts bring about a not necessarily good result. A “good will” is good because of the willing that is involved. Two main implications arise with this idea of the “good will”. The first implication is moral actions cannot have impure motivations. There are many impure motivations but Kant tends to focus mainly on the motives of the pursuit of happiness and self-preservation.
Kant proposes a test that ensures that humanity is treated with respect, and not used merely as an instrument. To understand how he defines this test, we must first take a look at the foundation of his main principle, the Categorical Imperative. Kant’s way of determining morality of actions is quite different from other philosophers, and many find it extremely hard to grasp or implausible. The central concept of his basic test for morality found in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is the categorical imperative. “The representation of an objective principle, insofar as it is necessitating for a will, is called a command (of reason), and the formula of the command is called an imperative”(Kant, 24).
1. To fully explain Onora O’neil’s argument for preferring Kantian ethics to Utilitarianism, a summary is needed of what Kantianism is all about. Onora O’neil’s argument is very useful because it explains in detail a review of Kantianism and a comparison of this with Utilitarianism. The main requirement Onora O’neil focuses on is that persons be treated as ends in themselves and on the value of human life. In her essay she also states what is right and wrong with both sides.
This is quite difficult. What is more, the less extreme case, in which there is no conflict between moral requirement and what is one’s projects, is not less difficult. That is, even if there were no conflict, the agent would still have to conceptual from her projects and assume a neutral observation of the situation. With the central role that is attributed to individual’s commitments, Kant’s moral theory can be deemed objectionable. That one’s attachment to a person may influence his or her moral reaction when need arise differently than when it is a case of an individual who has no attachment to any of the person’s that should lend a helping hand.
There are significant problems with both ideas. It is apparent however, that alternatives to these two conflicting schools of thought have been offered. One popular criticism of utilitarianism is that it deals too much with the consequences of one's actions, and the same for Kant except that it focuses too much upon intentions. Therefore I shall round up in part B of my essay how both theories fail as moral guideline on how to live life, and look at morality, which I feel are imperative in order to live the good life. During part A I shall be explaining Kant’s categorical argument in great detail.
His view of highest moral order may be something that looks to be inaccessible but it is definitely something that people should operate by even when they become hopeless or as Kant puts it, “overclouded by the sorrows of his own”. The standard that Kant sets in his Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals should be one that society follows when Works Cited Immanuel Kant - Groundwork for the metaphysics of Morals
People are valuable because of their will and intellect; they are not to be used just so that they can serve other people. In order to treat someone as an end in itself, we need to ensure that he/she fully understands the circumstances surrounding any arrangement. The person needs to be able to make an informed decision. Therefore it is morally wrong to treat someone as a mere means because it violates his/her intrinsic value. The morally correct action would be to treat the person as an end in itself and tell the truth to allow the person to make his/her own decisions.