This research paper considers ideas of Kant and Mill and applies them for the issues of war in the modern global world. Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill and Deontology of Kant can be compared and contrasted. In the modern context the main ideas of these great philosophers can be implemented in the context of modern political events. Whether there is a need for utilitarian morals and laws or whether it is much important to focus on individual values–these considerations are provided by Kant and Mill. Mill’s Utilitarianism. Mill developed the Greatest Happiness Principle, which he explains in the following way: “… the ultimate end … is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; … to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation” (Lectures on Mill). These considerations are appropriate for the modern global society. Mill mentions “all mankind”, “the whole sentient creation” . He applies global concepts for his considerations and these are relevant to the modern global society. The main operating category of Mill is consequentialism. He thinks that all rational beings should be subjected to equal moral laws and principles, but in case the nation was be oppressed by those principles, it would not accept them. Current political situation in the world can be analyzed with respect to Mill’s consequentialism. He said that all nations are striving for freedom. A nation is turned into a group of dummies in case they are not looking forward to liberty. A behavior of Americans in the Iraqi war can be analyzed with respect to Mill’s claims. Mill underlined that it is necessary to discard “despotism of custom” (Moseley, 2002). Every individual should have his own system of benefits, but it is more important for the society to have a group of sound members or individuals with clearly set goals. From this perspective Americans are positioned as great freedom setters in an oppressed nation (Moseley, 2002). It is inhumane to prevent people from freedom of thinking and the suppressors, in such a way, hide truth from their nations. Freedom is very important for people in the modern world. It is impossible to develop without it. Categorical Imperative of Kant This categorical imperative of Kant outlines similar positions for every individual. He claims that: The universal laws of nature should be met by individuals, who should act on maxims to meet requirements of the nature. Every individual is a sound human being and he should be treated with respect. An individual in every society should act as if he was “a member of an ideal kingdom of ends in which you were both subject and sovereign at the same time” (Williams, 1983). Thus, Kant underlines that independent actions of every individual are very important for the whole society. At the same time, individuals should refer to social, historical and many other external factors in their nations and to respect them. Furthermore, reflections of Kant can be illustrated by Four Quadrant Module: Picture 1. Four Quadrant Module. In such a way, the philosopher underlines the importance of social independence. In Quadrant One an individual is positioned as a potential benefits’ gainer. In Quadrant Two an individual should work in the name of social benefits or for “a common good”. Quadrant three makes an emphasis on the importance of independence. Quadrant four is focused on autonomy and interdependence between the individuals (Moseley, 2002). Therefore, oppressed nations, like in the case of Iraq, should be relieved otherwise the individuals of the nation will be unable to ...
Cite this document
(“Comparing Philosophical Positions of Kant and of John Stuart Mill Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/philosophy/70113-comparing-both-philosophical-positions-kant-and
(Comparing Philosophical Positions of Kant and of John Stuart Mill Essay)
“Comparing Philosophical Positions of Kant and of John Stuart Mill Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/philosophy/70113-comparing-both-philosophical-positions-kant-and.
Utilitarianism is often summarized as “the greatest good for the greatest number” being used to calculate the moral correctness of an action, decision, or policy for both individuals and society on a common standard. Utilitarianism ideally judges actions based upon their outcome in producing the greatest happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people, and therefore the ‘utility’ of an action can be calculated through its use in the production of the social good.
However, in order for these rules and regulations to be obeyed, there must be an autonomous government that ensures people follow the rule without using any favor in its administration (Bowie and Simon 56). Therefore, this essay is going to support the crucial role played by society in ensuring citizens enjoy their liberties, freedoms and happiness, as advocated by Mill in his two books On Liberty and Utilitarianism.
Mill proposed that the main aim of taking moral decisions is to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number. According to Mill, this objective is considered a legislative duty for all social institutions. Mill’s Utilitarian theory also posits that the conscience is not in any way the sole authority of the decision to do what is either right or wrong.
Referring to it as the principle of utility, Mill believes that the highest normative principle is that actions are moral as they tend to promote happiness and immoral as they tend to produce sadness or dissatisfaction. Although Mill was a utilitarian, he argued that not all forms of pleasure are of equal value, using his famous saying "It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied, than a fool satisfied." In this regard, John Stuart Mill rejects the classical virtue theory.
According to John Stuart Mill, the fundamental principle of morality refers to the principle of utility, or Greatest Happiness Principle, which asserts that individuals tend to act in a manner that is most likely to derive maximum pleasure, satisfaction, and happiness to a wide range of people.
The constraint may be physiological, moral, social , religious and in all the cases it limits the human being.
John Stuart Mill discussed this problem, of liberty-constraint in his essay: "On liberty". But the interest for this concept has appeared since childhood.
James Stuart Mill was born in 1773, at Northwater Bridge and was first educated in Montrose Academy. Here he met Sir John Stuart of Fettercairn, who gave the name of his eldest son, John Stuart Mill. In 1790, he went to the University of Edinburgh, at the age of seventeen, and in 1798 was licensed as a preacher.
Immanuel Kant, a famous historical philosopher in the 18th and 19th century, proposed the ‘Categorical Imperative or Practical Imperative’ (Maj, 2002). In his ethical theory that takes on a deontological approach, Kant placed an emphasis on the “Good Will” of
According to Chapter 5 of the Proper Functions of Representative Bodies, John Stuart Mill elaborately explains the meaning of a representative government whereby the people have the absolute power to exercise through their elected deputies the ultimate controlling power. These deputies are elected by the people themselves.
2 Pages(500 words)Book Report/Review
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Comparing Philosophical Positions of Kant and of John Stuart Mill for FREE!