Mill and Kant have opposite idea and they support different moral philosophies. Mill exactly suppose the idea of social thinking, namely he claims that everyone attach an importance to other human beings. However, Kant considers that selfishness reflect people’s characteristics, in other words, each person should pay attention to themselves not others, because the most important thing for them is themselves. Kant also highlight that people can only behave in a good manner, if they have good will. In other words, Kant attach an importance to people’s instinct or characteristics, Mill gives weight to promoting happiness and dissolution of the pain. Mill actually believes that people could not survive by only thinking themselves. In other words, people could not become more selfish as much as Kant stated because life force people to give importance to others. Since, they may be succeeding what they desire to do when they help each other on their necessities. Mill defends that people can accomplish individually of aims and closures ought to be considered some portion of their happiness. Mill describes utilitarianism like a hypothesis depend on the basis that if people tend to behave like promoting happiness, it would be a true …show more content…
Mill mostly concentrates on utilitarianism and he said that people could not be selfish, they have to help each other. If they gain benefit from another person, they have to help and satisfy other person’s demands. On the other hand, Kant believes that people can help each other or satisfy each other’s demands, if these activities are derived from people’s good will. Also he strongly supported that people’s good will is not connected with the qualification. As a result, even if I support the Kant’s ideas, Mill has some true points. In 21st century, people give importance to their benefits and they become socialize because of their