“All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason” (Kant 1). The usage of reason as a representation of one’s intellect is a common trait in the 21st century. Happiness, a positive emotion, tends to blur one’s judgement and coerces philosophers to look upon its relevance when formulating ethical decisions. When considering the role of emotion in ethical decisions, one must consider the contrasting views of Immanuel Kant, an 18th Prussian philosopher that focussed his philosophies around the doctrine of reason, in comparison to that of John Stewart Mill, a 19th century British philosopher that followed the doctrine of happiness through the ideology of utilitarianism. I shall argue that when making ethical decisions, it is imperative that happiness should play a very recessive, if any, role in the decision making process as it does not represent morality in any form.
According to Kant, a deontological ethicist, happiness is the “continuous well being, enjoyment of life, complete satisfaction with one’s condition” (Kant 593). He observes happiness as a form of hypothetical imperative, as opposed to a categorical imperative. Kant focuses on solely reason and does not explore the consequences of actions. He believes that there is no universal sense of happiness, and thereby states that the doctrine of happiness should not be equated with that of the doctrine of reason. In his book, Critique of Practical Reason, Kant defines happiness as being “the state of a rational being in the world, in the whole of whose existence everything goes according to his wish or will;” however, it is not a pleasure nor a source of happiness associated with a moral lif...
... middle of paper ...
...be learned from experience” (Kant 370). Since happiness contains knowledge from experience, it must have no moral significance. Therefore, Kant rightly leaves it out of his moral theory.
In conclusion, through this paper, I have sought out to prove that despite Mill’s utilitarianism stance, Kant’s deontological ethics stands on solid ground when stating the happiness should not be used in ethical decision-making. It is not always logical to take human nature into ethical decision as emotions and experiences tend to cloud one’s thought process. Though today’s society focuses on consequences in order to gain happiness, I believe humanity has been forced into an immoral pathway of ethical reasoning.
Kant, Immanuel. “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals.” The German Library: Volume 13. Ed. Ernst Behler. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 2006.
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.
From top to bottom, John Stuart Mill put forth an incredible essay depicting the various unknown complexities of morality. He has a remarkable understanding and appreciation of utilitarianism and throughout the essay the audience can grasp a clearer understanding of morality. Morality, itself, may never be totally defined, but despite the struggle and lack of definition it still has meaning. Moral instinct comes differently to everyone making it incredibly difficult to discover a basis of morality. Society may never effectively establish the basis, but Mill’s essay provides people with a good idea.
Johnson, R 2014, ‘Kant's Moral Philosophy,’ The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Spring Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), .
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans. H. J. Paton. 1964. Reprint. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2009. Print.
Each person's happiness is equally important.Mill believed that a free act is not an undetermined act. It is determined by the unconstrained choice of the person performing the act. Either external or internal forces compel an unfree act. Mill also determined that every situation depends on how you address the situation and that you are only responsible for your feelings and actions. You decide how you feel about what you think you saw.Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had an interesting ethical system. It is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality.
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.
I would like the reader to understand this need to assess our action is not necessarily a conscious and deliberate action that we take, but more from a philosophical questioning when we discuss ethics and which ethical theory is the best. Also, I used in the above the word pleasure, but here pleasure is not referring strictly to our bodily sensation but more our satisfaction and well-being like what Mill has discussed “intellectual pleasures”. This does not mean pleasure here is not hedonistic in nature in the sense the word is used but rather an extension of the term. Lastly, to clarify for the reader the opposite of happiness is not sadness; it is in fact unhappiness or pain. Further, the words ethical and moral are being used interchangeably. The above argument presented can be extended as follows
Before we look into specifics, we’ll examine the history and development of “happiness” as a philosophy. Of course, the emotion of happiness has always existed, but it began to be seriously contemplated around 2,500 years ago by philosophers like Confucius, Buddha, Socrates and Aristotle. Shortly after Buddha taught his followers his Noble Eight Fold Path (which we will talk about later), Aristotle was teaching that happiness is “dependent on the individual” (Aristotle).
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.
O’Neill, Onora. “Kantian Ethics.” A Companion to Ethics. Ed. Peter Singer. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1991. 175-185. Print.
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Wike, Victoria S. Kant on Happiness in Ethics. Albany: Albany State University Press, 1994. Print.
According to Webster dictionary the word Happiness in defined as Enjoying, showing, or marked by pleasure, satisfaction, or joy. People when they think of happiness, they think about having to good feeling inside. There are many types of happiness, which are expressed in many ways. Happiness is something that you can't just get it comes form your soul. Happiness is can be changed through many things that happen in our every day live.
Happiness is an inner state of well-being and fulfilment, and therefore it has to come from inside. Every individual has his or her own emotions and way of thinking and as a result of this no one can really say what happiness is and what happiness is not. However, universally, happiness is a by-product of a healthy attitude and viewpoint. Happiness exists in everyone whether they choose to acknowledge and believe it or not. It is not rare nor is it something only the elite have: everyone has it but not everyone recognizes it. Contentment is finding a light at the end of every dark tunnel and in order to experience this we must ignore the pessimism surrounding us and remind ourselves that happiness is not a materialistic object but a choice and frame of mind.