Honors Ethics: Kant Vs. Mill

825 Words4 Pages

Evan Bakker Prof. Cole Philosophy 1CH 15 May 2015 Honors Ethics Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who lived 1724-1804, and John Stuart Mill, a British philosopher who lived 1806-1873, were two of the greatest moral philosophers of all time. Mill presents and defends the moral theory of Utilitarianism while Kant rejects that theory and defends his own moral theory. Kant explains and defends his claims in a selection titled “The Good Will and The Categorical Imperative,” and Mill in the first two chapters in his selection titled “Utilitarianism.” Both philosophers have opposing viewpoints on whether or not an agent’s motive affects the moral worth of an action. Kant’s view proposes that an agent’s motive does affect the moral worth of his or her action, and Mill’s view proposes that an agent’s motive does not affect the moral worth of his or her action. Kant states in his essay that the moral worth of an action is determined by the motive of an action and not the consequence of an …show more content…

He begins by stating, “Is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will” (Kant 99). According to Kant the most important thing a person can have that is good without qualification or limitation is having a good will. Good will is the foundation of Kant’s theory about motive and is the first of his important points. He then goes on to explain what a good will. "A good will is not good because of what it effects accomplishes, because if its fitness to attain some proposed end, but only because of its volition, that is, it is good in itself and, regarded for itself, is to be valued incomparably higher than all that could merely be brought about by it in favor of some inclination and indeed, if you will, of the sum of all it's inclinations" (Kant 100). Kant is saying that a good