Comparing Kant And Mill's Murderer At The Door

When we consider Kant, it appears to be evident that almost all who are acquainted with his compositions recall the single word "obligation”. On the case of Mill, we often relate his works to that of “utility”. Both of these philosophers debate on whether our moral code is subjective or objective and what we ought to do in situations that lead us into a two-way path. What if this path has us caught between lying to a murderer or allowing them into our homes only for the reason of homicide? In the “Murderer at the Door” thought experiment, we are caught between Kant and Mill, our two-way path, and deciding whether it would be morally right to invite the murderer in the house or lie to save the life of the victim. This paper will look at both Kant and Mill’s positions as well as

Kant challenges the concept of deception through his ethical theory and whether or not it is a duty for us to abstain from lying in order to strengthen our society. According to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, every moral agent has a duty to impose a maxim on all of his or her wills. Kant believes that “moral law is truth of reason, and hence that all rational creatures are bound by the same moral law.” An example of a moral law, according to Kant, is that it is eternally immoral to tell a lie. Therefore, no one in the society has the “duty” to lie and should not break the moral code. However, what if we are faced with a murderer standing at our front door asking for a victim that could be hiding in our house. Kant expresses that acts are never right even when it accompanies an ideal result; therefore, he infers that lying to the perpetrator is not just even though it could save the victim’s life. On the off chance that Kant is right that ethical absolutes can't be damaged, then he keeps any escape clauses, self-serving special cases, and individual inclinations in the determination of our