The fundamental difference between the two men is that Aristotle argued that if the ends were considered, found to be totally unjust, and no other alternative was present, the action would still be morally righteous if it were taken.
You can place an order similar to this with us. Kant thought that moral laws or principles must have universality to be rational. Cambridge University Press, Therefore, we have the duty of being good to all persons. Aristotle argued that a person was virtuous if he upheld goodwill for the greatest good and made choices based on that ideal.
How to Write a Summary of an Article? Kant believed that happiness and utilitarian practices and idea did not matter as long as an action of morality was done with the motive of duty, then morality was served and moral value was upheld. For instance, should we ask them what they would like to eat or drink and maximize their pleasure, especially if they outnumber us and are much more excited about having something than we parents or adults are about their having it?
He describes these imperatives as the demands of moral decree. Kant also believes that human beings have "unconditional worth.
He believed that the moral law did not have to be influenced by other contingent factors of the world. The two philosophical approaches that will be examined and contrasted are the Kantian and Utilitarian perspectives.
Does everyone always accurately decide for him or herself what is pleasurable? This therefore gives Mill ground morality not just on personal pleasure but more on our obligation towards the people or on others.
Everything being equal, though people have many different and conflicting moral beliefs, people agree that pain is bad, and pleasure is good. Mill answers that that which is desirable is that we ought to choose. Kant also described a categorical imperative as a compulsory obligation.
Would we think this is a good theory with which to handle or raise children? What would a Rule Utilitarian say I should do? Happiness is something that we desire and it is our moral duty to pursue happiness.
What about chimps that have a high percentage of our DNA structure? For Aristotle, this belief was mostly true as well. Hence, killing the doctor would be the wrong thing to do and through Kant that action is not morally justified, since the moral law demands that we treat others as ends in themselves, and never as mere means to other ends.
Kant upheld systematic laws as the model of rational principles. Thus, the first formulation of the categorical imperative is, "Never act in such a way that I could not also will that my maxim should be a universal law P.
Kantianism and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the moral nature of human beings. Rational beings, on the other hand, are called persons because their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves, that is, as something which ought not to be used merely as a means.
In the Hill case, if Paul Hill kills the doctor than it is morally permissible for everyone else to kill someone they disagree with. The fact lies that the human mind, man, as a person may desire a thing which is not desirable in the first place.
Utilitarianism takes moral responsibility out of the realm of personal autonomy. Kant believed that human beings occupy a special place in creation. For instance, we use the services of certain people to deliver our newspapers, groceries, and mail.
What about non-human animals? On the other hand, Kant has his philosophy of giving morality a more philosophical feel. Is reason sufficient to motivate us to do our duty?
He believes that true happiness must be moral or intellectual in nature. The fact that the captor has a bad will to use the prisoners only as a means does not allow you to do the same. By contrast, when you use someone merely as a means only, it is abusive and lacks respect for that person.In favor of Kant’s ethical view: 1.
Rational, consistent, impartial: Kant’s view emphasizes the importance of rationality, consistency, impartiality, and respect for persons in the way we live our lives.
Kant and Mill's Theories In July ofPaul J. Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and later a pro-life activist, was prosecuted for killing Dr. John Britton, an abortion performing doctor, and James Barrett, a volunteer, outside a clinic in Pensacola, Florida.4/4(1). Compare Mill and Kant's ethical theories; which makes a better societal order?
Essay on Comparison of Jeremy Bentham’s and John Mill’s theories - Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, were both english philosophers that were born around the same time period, Bentham inand Mill in John Stuart Mill's Philosophy of. A Comparison between the Moral Philosophy of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant The discussion on Moral Philosophy and ethics has always been a controversial and very debatable topic, especially if we are to discuss each and every philosophy or ideology of every philosopher starting off from Greece up to the Post Modernists.
Kant Versus Mill On Morality Philosophy Essay. Print Reference this. Published: 23rd March, Disclaimer: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. Similarities between Kant and Mill. In my paper I will discuss the different claims made by both Mills and Kant on happiness" role in moral life and present the issue that turns these two ethical theories into a contrast between emotions and pleasures verses rationality and logic/5(11).Download