More handpicked essays just for you.
John mills theory of utilitarianism
5. Kant’s second fundamental principle of morality
Kants view on morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Another motive for action is when something is done in accordance to duty, and actually wants to do it – this is also called immediate inclination. An example of this principle would be a man who is happily married. However, at the office, there is an attractive new intern that constantly hits on him. He does find the intern to be physically attractive but does not actually desire to be with her. He reflects that he could indeed have an affair with this intern if he wanted to but he wont in a million years because he is extremely happy with his wife. He wouldn’t risk that relationship for a chance at a fling. According to Kant, this would not have moral worth because it comes from immediate inclination, not from the motive of duty.
The fourth one is to act but only from out of duty. An example of someone acting from duty would be a woman who marries a man out of love. Their marriage is initially a happy bliss however, they drift apart, yet they stick to their usual routines just to keep their household running - more like roommates than lovers. Her husband is then in a really bad ca...
Capital punishment is most commonly known as the death penalty or punishment by death for a crime. It is a highly controversial topic and many people and great thinkers alike have debated about it. Two well-known figures are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Although both stand in favor of capital punishment, their reasons for coming to this conclusion are completely different. I personally stand against capital punishment, but my own personal view on it incorporates a few mixed elements from both individuals as well as my own personal insight. Firstly, in order to understand why Kant and Mill support capital punishment, we must first understand their views on punishment in general.
For more than two thousand years, the human race has struggled to effectively establish the basis of morality. Society has made little progress distinguishing between morally right and wrong. Even the most intellectual minds fail to distinguish the underlying principles of morality. A consensus on morality is far from being reached. The struggle to create a basis has created a vigorous warfare, bursting with disagreement and disputation. Despite the lack of understanding, John Stuart Mill confidently believes that truths can still have meaning even if society struggles to understand its principles. Mill does an outstanding job at depicting morality and for that the entire essay is a masterpiece. His claims throughout the essay could not be any closer to the truth.
Firstly, by looking at the first patient, whether she gets a kidney from her father or a “cadaver kidney” , there will be no difference because she needs a kidney nonetheless. The second patient however, cannot agree to give his kidney away because one of the main reasons is that he’s scared and lacks “the courage to make this donation”9. So right at this point, it can be seen that it would be better if the father didn’t give his kidney away because it wouldn’t cause him any happiness, whereas the daughter has two options to gIn everyday life, whether on a personal base or on a professional base, difficult scenarios, or also known as moral dilemmas, are present. Depending on whom the person is or what their belief and value systems are, the issue can be ‘resolved’. In this particular case, questions arise about whether it is morally right to lie to family members when something can be done, ignoring the fact of its after effects. The case will be explained in details later on including the patient’s state, but to answer this ethical question, two theorists will be presented for the con and pro side. For the con side, the deontologist Immanuel Kant will be presented with his theory that lying is prohibited under all circumstances, as for the pro side, John Stuart Mill will be presented for the utilitarian theory stating that whichever decision brings out the most happiness is the right decision. After discussing the case, my personal view of what is right will be stated with my own reasons, which is that lying is the right decision to be taken.
Arguably England’s most influential philosopher of the 19th century was none other than John Stuart Mill, a main proponent to utilitarianism — an ethical theory placing emphasis on the consequences of our actions. The ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to provide a scientific approach to decision making, while simultaneously seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. As a young woman pondering the right course of action for my future, Mill’s contributions to utilitarianism are both practical and intriguing to someone in my situation.
In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,
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.
Happiness. People go to any means by which to obtain the many varied materials and issues
Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
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.
Introduction One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights.
When Kant says, "For when moral value is being considered, the concern is not with the actions, which are seen, but rather with their inner principles, which are not seen," in page 19, he is suggesting that a person's true motives behind the action are more important in determining if the action holds true moral value. As Jonathan Bennett, a British philosopher of language and metaphysics who translated Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, says, when moral worth is in question it is not a matter of visible actions but of their invisible inner principles (Bennett, 19). Kant explains that a human being might have inclinations, reasons for doing something, beyond moral reasons. Inclinations are motives (desires, interests, incentives, fears, or impulses) that one may possess, but will sometimes seem hidden when performing an action. If there lies a motive behind carrying out an action, aside for the sake of duty alone, then it can be considered to be i...
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
Kant 's moral theory focuses on the intention of the action, rather than any consequence attached to such action. According to Kant, an individual 's will is what animates the individual 's body, while the duty is the obedience to a moral law. An individual 's will is considered to be strong when it is aligned with duty, even if the consequences harm that individual. For example, a student can fail a test instead of cheating since he or she believes that cheating is wrong. "You should not cheat" is an example of a maxim, a subjective principle that governs action. In order for a maxim to be morally right, it must be a categorical imperative, taken from an individual to a universal scale. In other words, is it rationally possible...
In order to understand John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism we must first understand his history and motives in writing the series of essays. Mill had many influencers most notably his father James Mill and the father of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham. James grew up poor but was influenced by his mother, who had high hopes for the formerly named Milne family, and educated himself becoming a preacher and then executive in the East India Company. James was a proponent of empiricism and believed in John Locke’s idea of man being born as a blank slate. James did not send his son John to school, teaching him rigorously from the early age of three. Despite his father’s emphasis on the blank slate, Mill was criticized for being a manufactured man because