John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism - Essay Example

The moral philosophies of J.S. Mill and Kant are structurally so different in as much as Mill puts primary importance, and strictly, on empiricism, or natural experience as the basis for morality, whereas Kant's basis for morality (the morality of metaphysics) stems from a priori knowledge or what he calls pure reason - laws which are evident in every rational being. Utilitarianism putting happiness as the supreme guide for spelling out what is good and right is quite clear on putting forward a means while Kant's insistence on the intuitive derivation of what is moral, is quite unshakeable on what the end must be - which must be unconditional on any value or preference, happiness including.

The utility is synonymous with pleasure or happiness for a Utilitarian moralist like J.S. Mill. He recognizes that all desirable things differ from one individual to another, and are desirable either for their own sake or as a means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain. However, J.S. Mill writes that mental have been favored over bodily pleasures, "not intrinsically" - but because the former holds several advantages such as their "greater permanency", and the like. Thus, some pleasures are more desirable than others.

The determining factors for such a choice are the experience and the judgment of the individual - and yet utilitarianism could only attain its end through the cultivation of character. The interest of the individual must be placed as nearly in harmony with the interest of the whole society through education so that the happiness of the individual is linked with that of society. If a standard between the varying interpretation of happiness between individual arises, then J.S. enjoins the use of what he calls "landmarks" to the end.

Happiness also not being an abstract idea, "is a concrete whole" and includes in the desire towards its pleasurable end such things as virtue, money, power, and fame - which may have started out as means, but become part of the ends themselves. In what Kant called the metaphysics of morals, actions are right or good not from their purpose or of their desired end but by their very volition, unconditional of any internal or external influence. Yet, moral principles must be based on a priori of themselves, not based on human nature.

The commandment to do what is right or moral stems from an imperative - which can be hypothetical or categorical. When an action is contemplated because it is a means to an end, then it is a hypothetical imperative. While Kant calls happiness a natural necessity possessed by all, he writes that the imperative which refers to the choice of means towards one happiness is "still always hypothetical" and thus, falls short of morality. Happiness cannot point to a definite end because though everyone wants to attain it, one cannot be consistent or definite on what he wills or wants.

For a man to know what he wants to be happy would be impossible because it would require omniscience. For Kant, no definite principles are possible to secure happiness except on empirical grounds, which nonetheless is what J.S. Mill insists on.