Mill holds an empiricist theory while Kant holds a rationalist theory. Kant grounds morality in forms that he believes, are necessary to free and rational practical judgment, namely his deontological ethics. Mill?s utilitarian theory is a form of consequentialism because the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the consequences. Thus, deontologicalism and consequentialism are the main criticisms for both these theories. Kant?s ethics of pure duty is the basis for his categorical imperative, which provides the basis for his universalist duty based theory.
Kant proposes three formulations the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viablity of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives. The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative is defined by Kant to "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Good moral actions are those of which are motivated by maxims which can be consistently willed that it’s generalized form be a universal law of nature. These maxims are otherwise known as universilizable maxims.
Kant’s deontological ethics is grounded on concepts of duty, the categorical imperative, and good will. Similarly, Arendt utilizes Kant’s categorical imperative and idea of duty to share her account of Adolf Eichmann’s trial. She recognizes that even though Eichmann attempted to live according to a Kantian definition of duty, his behavior did not fit Kant’s moral precepts. Mill, contrastingly, holds a teleological philosophy and uses the concept of consequentialism and utilitarianism to argue against Kant’s morality. In any case, the three philosophers bring thoughtful ethical philosophical concepts which provide new ways to analyze moral conflicts.
Immanuel Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals In his publication, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant supplies his readers with a thesis that claims morality can be derived from the principle of the categorical imperative. The strongest argument to support his thesis is the difference between actions in accordance with duty and actions in accordance from duty. To setup his thesis, Kant first draws a distinction between empirical and “a priori” concepts. Empirical concepts are ideas we reach from our experiences in the world. On the other hand and in contrast, “a priori” concepts are ideas we reach as an end point of reasoning prior to or apart from any experience of how things occur in the world.
1. Explain Onora O’neil’s argument for preferring Kantian ethics to Utilitarianism. 2. How would Richard Taylor respond to O’neil’s defense of Kantianism? In the following questions, Onora O’neil defends Kantian ethics while Richard Taylor agrees more with the Utilitarian ethics view.
One aspect of our beliefs appears to be lenience in our moral rules and tests. It appears that due to Kant’s rigid formulations of the categorical imperative, our moral beliefs are not accurately represented, with maxims that appear morally acceptable failing formulations of the cate-gorical imperative. Consequently, were we to follow the results of Kant’s categorical imperative, we would act differently to our moral beliefs, possibly paralyzing us to inaction, when it appears we ought to act. This illustrates the difference between our moral beliefs and the results of Kant’s categorical impera-tive.
Obvious -the word that perhaps succinctly defines the way Kant saw the truths of the world around him. Not so obvious are the arguments that lie within his writings. As he emphasizes the importance, yet confusing nature of reason in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, he proves his own point by his reasoning processes. However, in this work he systematically develops his argument for a universal good- the good will, in which inclination, duty, and reason play crucial roles. 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.
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. In the neglected Amphiboly of the Concepts of Reflection, Kant introduces a new transcendental activity, Transcendental Deliberation (Kemp Smith calls it Transcendental Reflection). It aims to determine to which faculty a representation belongs and does so by examining the representation's relationships to other representations. This enterprise yields some powerful ideas.
These pleasures that Mill speaks of is divided into two forms, that being bodily and intellectually, which I will address later along this essay. This essay will articulate an adequate explication of the Deontological and the Utilitarian theory and explaining the position that Kant and Mill would have regarding the question, “is it morally permissible to tell a lie?” I will also be providing my position regarding which theory is to be most reasonable, as well as which theory best addresses the question. Immanuel Kant philosophy begins with the concept of “good will,” which he believes to be the only good in itself. There are many qualities that attribute to the goodwill (courage, resolution, and perseverance), but they are not intrinsically good, because they too can be deleterious. However, with the interweaving of the goodwill and these qualities we than can see the manifestation of good in these qualities.
The imperative in this case refers to a command. Principally, Kant argued that immorality involved the violation of the Categorical Imperative, hence it was deemed irrational. By analyzing Johnson’s article Kant’s Moral Philosophy, one can deduce that Kant was in agreement with his predecessors on the fact that practical reason analysis only reveals the prerequisite that rational agents must conform to instrumental principles. Nevertheless he argues that the rational agency should be shaped in accordance with the CI and hence would achieve the moral requirements themselves. Kant argued that the rational will is always autonomous; hence, he states that the morality principle is a law of autonomous will.