Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you! Try us!

Comparing Philosophical Positions of Kant and of John Stuart Mill - Essay Example

Only on StudentShare
College
Author : runtearlene
Essay
Philosophy
Pages 4 (1004 words)

Summary

In the modern global context it is very important to be aware of philosophical ideas of the leading philosophers. Many ideas of famous philosophers are the basic for many modern scholars’ theories…

Extract of sample
Comparing Philosophical Positions of Kant and of John Stuart Mill

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. ...
Download paper

Related Essays

John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism and Pleasure.
Utilitarianism as a guide to personal behavior can relate to both personal experiences of happiness or pleasure as a guide to conduct and a recognition of the greater good of society as a higher motivation for service. Consequently, the basis for moral action is described in Utilitarianism for both the individual and society. Utilitarianism, as posited by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) historically, has been criticized as being a “doctrine worthy only of swine,” because critics concluded that using pleasure or personal happiness as a criteria for universal…
5 pages (1255 words)
Utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
As Bentham wrote in Chapter 1 of ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation,’ "By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness." (Bentham, 1823) Utilitarianism addresses the philosophical problem that occurs in the definition of “the good” in a pluralistic society where many people may differ on…
9 pages (2259 words)
John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism
He argues that the principle of utility should be seen as a tool for promoting general happiness. Most of our actions, according to him, should be judged according to this principle. In his illustration of the utility theory, Mill thinks that we should appeal to the principle of utility only when we face a moral dilemma between two secondary principles. The basic assumption of the utilitarian theory, as advocated by Mill, is that "we should each act so as to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people." These important ethical views of Mill can be applied in almost all…
3 pages (753 words)
Kant, Mill, and Nietzsche
However, Kant and Mill also differ in a sense that Kant states that a person’s moral is innate as in a priori reasoning and Mill suggests, however selfishly, that morals are essential to a person’s happiness as people abide to morals for them to be happy. Now, for Nietzsche being good – at least morally good, is a social construct as the upper class and the people who are in control are defining the word with their preferences and activities. It can change as to who controls the social power. With this notion, evil, or bad, is also arbitrary, as the social class also determines which are…
3 pages (753 words)
Kant and Mill Ideologies
Indeed, Mill claims that people should value the principle of utility as a tool that derives secondary moral principles, which promote general happiness. The fundamental principle of morality means that happiness is intended pleasure and absence of pain where right actions promote happiness while wrong actions produce the reverse of happiness, which is unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. As such, we can judge people’s actions based on the secondary principles, which promote general happiness. On the other hand, Immanuel Kant defines the fundamental principle of morality as the…
4 pages (1004 words)
John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill was educated by his father, James Mill, who was cold and rigid. From then Mill understood the undergrounds of liberty and saw the mistakes from his father's rigid system of education: "Mill recognized , in later life, that his father's system had the fault of appealing to the intellect only and that the culture of his practical and emotional life had been neglected".(John Stuart Mill, Life and writings)…
3 pages (753 words)
Comparing both Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill's philosophical positions
He believed that happiness is derived from the good will in performing an action regardless of the consequences. Consequently, the results of an action, whether good or bad, should be deemed irrelevant so long as the basis of good action was based on good will. Furthermore, he believed that people actions were morally good when based on an obligation to duty. According to Kant, if a maxim was in compliance to universal law then it was morally good and could be subjected to rational human beings (Maj, 2002). Kant further specified the practical imperative which dictated on human dignity. The…
2 pages (502 words)