Comparing Kant's Categorical Imperative And John Stuart Mill

507 Words3 Pages
Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative and John Stuart Mill’s view of utilitarianism are two very different approaches to ethics and morals. In fact, they are the opposite of one another. Kant’s view of ethics is an ethics of pure reason- a deontological theory of ethics. He stresses that feelings and emotions should have no part in ethics because they are unreliable, changeable, and uncertain. He states that ethical principles must be universal and that ethics are distinctively human. Kant also thought it was possible for pure reason to discover objective ethical truths. Kant believed that ethical truths must be categorical, universal, and be the product of reason. Kant’s categorical imperative states that a person should always act in such a way that they could will that act should be a universal law. This means that Kant thought that it was best to do the right thing, even if the person didn’t want to. This view of ethics focuses on what is right to do. Kant also said that if someone did the right thing because they wanted to, their acts would have no moral worth. Kant’s arguments aren’t…show more content…
When using the utilitarian approach, suffering is always involved even if it is to a small degree. When acting along Kant’s categorical imperative, it is simpler and fairer. When acting you would only have to ask “If someone else did this would it be okay for them too?” If the utilitarian approach was used the person would have to ask more questions regarding the situation. Using categorical imperative is fairer because suffering, even to a slight amount, wouldn’t be an option. In conclusion, Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, in my opinion, is the most appropriate approach to ethics and morals. It is an example of a deontological ethic that is based on reason. On the other hand, utilitarian ethics is an example of teleological ethics that uses both reasons and feelings in order to
Open Document