Compare And Contrast Mill And Utilitarianism

While it may seem difficult or tedious to donate one’s time or money to a charity, shelter, or soup kitchen, Mill agrees that the discomfort of a few noble individuals is still to the benefit of society as a whole because what truly matters is adding to the total amount of happiness. On this , Mill writes, “Utilitarianism, therefore, could attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefited by the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit,” (page 11). Mill believes that those that renounce their own happiness for the increase in happiness of society as a whole are honorable, this is shown in this quote, “That the happiness which forms the Utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agent’s own happiness but that of all concerned” (page 17). The key ideal in Utilitarian morality is similar to the humanity principle in which one should treat others the way they would want to be treated. Other Utilitarian philosophers hold a

While a Utilitarian would say that it’s their duty to maximize the overall happiness of society whenever possible, a Kant would say that while donating to charity is a duty, it’s not one that must be fulfilled all the time. To Kant there are two kinds of duties: perfect and imperfect. Perfect duties must always be performed, while imperfect duties can be performed sometimes. For example, not committing suicide is a perfect duty to oneself, because human life is sacred and should be preserved, but charity, or as Kant puts it, “To be beneficent where one can,” is an imperfect duty (page 11). Of these two approaches to homelessness and charity I think it’s better to maximize the overall good whenever possible, even if it causes some unhappiness in the agent, it’s the happiness and betterment of society as a whole that