Similarities Between Categorical Kant And Mill

1319 Words6 Pages
Throughout the history of humanity, morals have been incorporated into everyday life. The first set of morals came from religion, which told people what to do and not do to go to heaven. To centuries, the morals established by the church had never been questioned. To analyze the kind of morals, present in humanities every day, philosophers identified the different types of ethical moral. Two of this philosopher 's theories would be defined to find the similarities and differences that impact humanity. One of this philosophers is Utilitarian John Stuart Mill, author of Utilitarianism that focuses on utility. The other philosopher is metaphysician Immanuel Kant, author of Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals focusing on the theory of Categorical…show more content…
Both theorists have in common the following. Under Categorical imperative and Utilitarianism, everyone in society counts. To be more specific, whatever action taken has to impact other and no only the individual. When conduction an action, the personal feeling is not subjective. For Kant, people have to do what is right because it is the right thing to do, without taking into consideration personal opinion. On the other hand, mill’s theory would agree with the idea of non-subjectivity but not on the same terms as Kant. Mill would argue that if something brings happiness to the general public but not to the individual, it would still be considered the right thing to do. Both authors do not believe in the idea of virtue theory. However, their reasons are parallel to each other. Mill argues that actions have to be a focus on the concept of utility, since actions might be morally wrong and still be part of maximizing happiness. In Kant 's perspective, people have to do what is good based on their duty to the general public and not because it is morally right. Kant also believes that people’s rights are not to be disobeyed for the benefit of everyone. Mill would disagree with this theory since Utilitarianism accepts the concept to violate others rights if the outcome brings general happiness. This idea follows the value of the object, which argues that…show more content…
During the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr wrote The Letter from Birmingham. In the letter, MLk explains how white church ministers and middle-class black thought that he was moving too fast to the idea of equality. However, King believes that it was his duty and the necessary thing to end segregation for the majority that hast been told too many times that time would heal all wounds. The country has to desegregation for colored people to be viewed as equal. Even though theoretically colored individuals are equal, in practice they are view as inferior to whites. The main point is that white’s preference for segregation interferes with people of color happiness. Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill will react to the following situations as follows. Kant would agree that the civil right movement for the benefit of a minority that is being oppressed is the right thing to do. People like MLK are no fighting for desegregation only for their personal gain but for the vast majority. Mill would also agree with the idea of desegregation since MLK is giving up his happiness for the overall happiness of everyone. Even though some white would lose the pleasure of isolated locations, it is all about the happiness of the majority. The solution will not only maximize happiness but also minimize the pain of a group whose pain
Open Document