ipl-logo

Mill Kant And Universal Law

797 Words4 Pages

The philosophical theories of Mill, Kant, and Aristotle all have strong and weak arguments. This causes some controversy of who is closest to the truth. Each theory has its own popularity in different circles of society. However I, like many others tend to agree with Kant’s theory of Categorical Imperative and Universal law. I believe these are the strongest most concrete arguments out of all of those in other theories. Kant states that one is a good or bad person depending on the intentions or motivations behind their actions rather then the outcome of those actions. I agree with this statement because many times ones actions do not play out like we planned and that is ok as longest we tried. The consequences of someone’s actions are not isolated …show more content…

This universal law states, “Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time and without contradiction will to be a universal law”. The meaning of this to me is similar to that saying “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. For example, if you are married and find someone else other than you spouse attractive and you question your self if perusing something with this other person behind your spouses back is acceptable, then you must ask yourself if everyone perused some other person behind their spouses back (including your own spouse) would this be ok? Since this would lead to a contradiction to marriage as a monogamy and therefore make all marriages void, then the answer is no. Therefore, you person something behind your spouses back with another person is morally wrong. Mill would analyze it differently by looking at the outcomes of this situation however; you can’t know the outcome of the situation unless you peruse it in the first place. Therefore a utilitarian perspective cannot lead you to a decision. On the other hand Aristotle would agree with Kant in saying that cheating is wrong but he would focus on the virtue of the …show more content…

People are all ends on their own and using anyone is wrong especially if it’s for personal gain. This is immoral because it is like disrespect to the dignity of the other person and they are being treated as if they were objects. Mill as a utilitarian seeks to maximize utility; even if that utility comes from another human being as longest the consequences are good. An example of this would be to let a one person dies in order to save ten people. This is acceptable under Mill’s theory because ten people’s lives are more important than one. In Kant’s view all lives have the same value and it wouldn’t be morally acceptable to use one persons life for the other ten. Aristotle’s perspective would be to find the mean of both

Show More
Related
871 Words | 4 Pages

There is an interesting question to be raised when discussing the philosophy of Kant and his approach toward evil. The question lies in whether Kant’s philosophy is efficient to explain human predicament, that is, a person’s suffering in relation to a cause—usually evil—that he is subject to. In my opinion, although Kant’s arguments concerning evil are clear and logical in a sense, his theory is still too flawed to properly explain human predicament. In this paper, I will provide two reasons, which I would like to call common sense, to argue my position. First, Kant places too much emphasis on the intent behind an action rather than the consequence of the action itself.

Read More
1514 Words | 7 Pages

Kant advocates for moral laws to be grounded in pure practical reason instead of empirical observations. According to him, moral laws should be based on a priori principles of reason instead of contingent facts about human nature. By grounding moral laws in pure practical reason, Kant wishes to

Read More
825 Words | 4 Pages

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).

Read More
561 Words | 3 Pages

Immanuel Kant, a renowned philosopher, reflected upon the fundamental question of ethics concerning what makes a moral action wrong or right. In the “Groundwork for Metaphysic of Morals” by Kant, he claims that the only thing good is without qualification is “the good will.” Kant’s idea/belief highlights the essence of moral intentions and duty over self-interest or external factors, but it overlooks the importance of outcomes and consequences in determining moral goodness. His ideology sparks philosophical discourse, which leads to varied ethical perspectives regarding moral intention versus the outcomes of determining moral goodness. According to Kant, an act is considered good if done from moral duty and is not influenced by personal desires or external factors.

Read More
714 Words | 3 Pages

Mill describes utilitarianism like a hypothesis depend on the basis that if people tend to behave like promoting happiness, it would be a true

Read More
1536 Words | 7 Pages

John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant were two philosophers who focused on the concept of ethics, “moral principles that govern a person’s or group’s behavior” (Ethics). Mill was born in London, United Kingdom on May 20, 1806 and lived his life as a philosopher, author, scholar, and economist until his death on May 8, 1873. Kant was before Mill’s time, born on April 22, 1724 and was a well known philosopher before his death on February 12, 1804, just over two years before Mill’s birth. In particular, the two philosophers focused on how to determine what is morally right when faced with a situation. However, they used very different theories in order to conclude moral obligation in different circumstances.

Read More
471 Words | 2 Pages

Ava Schilsky PHIL 1001H Dr. Colette 4 March 2023 Immanuel Kant’s “The Good Will and the Categorical Imperative” explores the nature of morality and good will with use of allegories and philosophical explanations. He argues that “good will” is the only inherently good thing in the world; unlike “power, riches, honor, and even health,” good will is incorruptible. In contradiction to consequentialism, Kant asserts that the morality of an action is decided by the intentions behind it rather than the consequences. Additionally, this German philosopher makes the distinction between two different impetus for action: either out of respect for the moral law or out of respect for a duty or obligation.

Read More
1502 Words | 7 Pages

Immanuel Kant’s Moral Argument: Fundamentally Flawed The philosophical argument of moral reasoning is based on the premise that if God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not exist. As objective moral values and duties do exist, it can therefore be assumed that God exists. God provides human beings with an innate moral objective reference point. God is the standard of moral values humans compare themselves to.

Read More
339 Words | 2 Pages

“The practical imperative, therefore, is the following: act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.” There are four imperatives following Kant’s foundations of morality. The first one states man contemplating ending his own life and whether it is consistent

Read More
981 Words | 4 Pages

According to Sandel’s lecture, which type of moral reasoning, does Mill’s utilitarianism use? According to Mill the principle of utility means realizing a consequence of something before you do it,whether your intentions are good or bad. What Mill means by utilitarianism is giving the greatest hapiness to the greatest number of people. According to Sandel 's lecture Mill 's utilitarianism uses consequentialist reasoning.

Read More
261 Words | 2 Pages

The universal law comes from our own rational assent willingly, not from the outside. If you obey the moral law out of fear we are no longer acting out of free will because our reasons are partial and pragmatic. I agree with this idea because every person has a moral dignity. Everybody has some good in them, whether they use it not.

Read More
1385 Words | 6 Pages

Immanuel Kant and John Samuel Mill have various similarities and differences on how we see the world. Where both will have, different ideologies referring to the cases of rescue I and rescue II. Kant and Mill are similar in multiple ways where both recognize the moral rules where Kant calls them duties and Mill calls them subordinate principles. Both have the subordinate principles where not to lie, no to stealing, and deprive from liberty from others. Appealing the consequences of the derived duties, where Kant considers the consequence of Maxim to become a universal law of nature, Mill considers the consequence of kind action.

Read More
418 Words | 2 Pages

Let’s analyse another scenario. There is a family, who doesn’t have money to buy food for themselves. They haven’t eaten in days and they’re losing their health due to starvation. Thus, in order to protect their health and life, a member of the family decides to steal some money to get food for all of them. Now what would Kant say about this scenario?

Read More
1536 Words | 7 Pages

Kant’s moral philosophy stands on the notion of good will, an intrinsic good which is perceived to be so without qualification, independent of any external factors. Thus, he dismisses other values that could be taken as good in themselves, such as happiness, honesty, courage, trust etc. as they have worth only under specific conditions, whereas in others they could be transposed into bad acts. For example, trust is necessary for one to be able to manipulate others, one must have courage to be able to

Read More
1969 Words | 8 Pages

A universal law means that everyone would behave the same way if your maxim was applied. Therefore, if your maxim could pass as a universal law then your action is moral, i.e., done out of duty. The Formula of Universal Law requires a four-step test to determine the morality of the maxim. The first test is to create a maxim for your intended action. The second test is to apply that maxim as if it would be a law of nature governing all rational beings.

Read More

More about Mill Kant And Universal Law

Related Topics

Open Document