by the limit of Mill’s Utilitarianism. I would only focus on Mill’s charge of Kant’s moral law. Because it might be superfluous for my purpose to discuss Mill’s utilitarianism on its own accord, much like discussing Hegel’s own philosophy in the earlier section. 2.2.1 Mill’s Utilitarianism Mill 's critique of Kant derives from the philosophical perspective of Utilitarianism. In the Introduction of his book, Utilitarianism, Mill remarks that it is rare that moral thinkers do not provide a list of a priori principles or offer a guiding first principle or an area of common ground. In Utilitarianism, Mill’s view is that right actions are the intention of promoting happiness while wrong actions are the products of the reverse of happiness. Happiness …show more content…
If not, conceivably there might be no theoretical and practical improvement regarding CI1. We might simply disregard this process or recognize it as a form of the universal law of nature; CI1A and CI1 might be, then, the same law in different forms. Actually, however, Silber attempts to disguise content as a form, although it seems that CI1A is intended to provide the content for procedural rationality; Silber insists nonetheless that the typic is merely formal. Kant and Silber both contend that CI1 and CI1A are the same law in the form. They deny that the analogy with nature and the talk of harmony in a kingdom of ends introduce material considerations (i.e. concrete function or purpose) into the universalization test. However, as soon as Kant introduces the purpose of Bestimmungen in the suicide illustration, we know this notion of formalism is in trouble: we cannot prohibit suicide relying on CI1 unless we also introduce CI1A which holds that purpose of self-love is fundamentally