Kant is more rigid with the rules meaning a rule is set in place for a reason so it is supposed to be followed. He writes “ well worth Avenue in action depends neither on the result expected from that action nor on any principle of action that has to borrow its motive from this expected result” (Kant 106). this means the decisions and should not be made based on what the person will receive or what the person has the ability to receive. For example, I have moved my friend money for him to be able to purchase wheels for his truck. Give me money back was not an issue because he is not he would find himself a transportation to school which will benefit his future as well as his ability to get to his job.
I think I will divert the train to the right killing one person because one person is less important than five. Sometimes it is important to do what is right than what is morally good to do. The utilitarianism is a moral theory that gives happiness to the number of people in the society and it has been considered greatness, an action is morally appropriate if its outcomes lead to happiness and wrong if it results in sadness. I will begin by describing what Mill might do in the Trolley situation. Next, I will contrast what Kant might do in this situation and lastly, I will be also going to give my opinion on this Trolley situation.
For Mill people to hold their place should consider others as part of their world. Mill puts freedom as a condition of happiness; I believe that Mill does not refer to happiness as a synonym for pleasure. Rather it is a complex of elements including being virtuous is critical along with one 's freedom and self-respect. The utility says Mill is neither pleasure nor may be an object to be identified with the total pleasure. Utilitarianism lays the foundation of morality in the profit or principle of the greatest happiness; he says actions are good insofar as they grant happiness and bad otherwise.
It can be used both for moral reasoning and for any type of rational decision-making. In addition to applying in different contexts, it can also be used for deliberations about the interests of different persons and groups. Because Mill was interested in political groups and public policies, they often focused on discovering which actions and policies would maximize the well-being of the relevant group. Their method for determining the well-being of a group involved adding up the benefits and losses that members of the group would experience as a result of adopting one action or policy. The well-being of the group is simply the sum total of the interests of the all of its members.
Challenging morality and natural rights Finally, Mill's utilitarian approach dismisses paternalism on two crucial grounds: that of morality and natural rights. To Mill, it seems that coercive paternalism attempts to promote ideals and absolutes; to prevent all negative outcomes, and to eliminate bad choices. It claims that 'we are intractably irrational' and that 'we have a natural, even biological, tendency towards social conformity' (Conly, 2013, pp.7-9); that we are not seeking changes and improvements, and rather fall into a state of discomfort and a lack of motivations. Therefore, as a natural right, we need an outside help that would guide citizens and limit their wrong choices. This view, however, clashes with Mill's liberalism that
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two of the most notable philosophers in normative ethics. This branch of ethics is based on moral standards that determine what is considered morally right and wrong. This paper will focus on Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontology and J.S. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position.
John Stuart Mill, at the very beginning of chapter 2 entitled “what is utilitarianism”. starts off by explaining to the readers what utility is, Utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain. This leads us to another name for utility which is the greatest happiness principle. Mill claims that “actions are right in proportions as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” “By Happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by happiness, pain and the privation of pleasure”.
Morality and Religion: A Psychological Perspective The relationship between morality and religion is a common topic of debate, across cultures. Many argue that without religion one’s moral compass will be askew, while others view morality as being based in autonomy and real life experiences. In this article, Anca Mustea, Oana Negru, and Adrian Opre explored approaches to morality, types of morality, and religion’s role morality.
Even though Utilitarianism has many concepts, all of which have a common goal to create the most amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, there are specific concepts that highlight why Mill is considered the most moral theory. One of those concepts is his idea of having rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism for everyone to follow. Rule utilitarianism is what our society is today; we have laws emplaced for the common good of society, to keep stability and create the most amount of happiness within the community. General rules which keep happiness and calmness within the group. You may ask the question, though, what if a law is biased to a certain group of individuals?
According to Bentham, the Nature has placed mankind under the governance of pleasure and pain. They point out what we ought to do and determine what we shall do. One hand there is the standard of right and wrong and on the other hand lies the chain of causes and effects. This is called the Principle of Utility(PoU). The more consistently the PoU is pursued, the better it is for the mankind.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based on the idea people should act in a way that produces the greatest optimal utility. In other words, people’s choices should achieve the greatest amount or benefits for the greatest amount of people and oneself. In this paper, I will argue the Hedonistic view point John Stuart Mill presents is a more refined branch of utilitarianism because of Mill’s concept of higher and lower pleasures . This paper is broken into two main sections. I will begin by outlining Mill’s Hedonistic Utilitarianism.
According to Mill the Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP) or Utility, is the making of decisions that will produce the greatest amount of happiness and avoiding the choices that will produce a great amount of the reverse of happiness. Happiness is characterized by intended pleasure and the lacking of pain. Mill has stated that actions are right if they promote happiness but they are wrong if they produce the reverse of happiness (pain). He also states that the only desirable ends are those that involve pleasure and freedom from pain. Things are desirable because they help reduce pain or produce pleasure.
He says that one must act not only in accordance to duty, but for the sake of duty However, According to the Utilitarianism, Mill emphasizes that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness Immanuel Kant is the founder of the Kantian branch of ethics and morality, and his theories are personally my favorite theory of ethics so far. According to the utilitarianism, the best action is the one that maximizes utility. However, in Kant’s moral philosophy, people
The dignity of man consists in the ability to make a universal law that he himself must obey. And man formulates the universal law by means of reason.” Kant concludes that the principle of morality is a moral law capable of universalization and created through reason, guiding us to the virtuous action in any circumstance. Further, he concludes that virtue comes from good will. Therefore, I am permitted to conclude that a person could perform non-virtuous acts on many occasions but still be considered virtuous when performing virtuous acts.
Rethinking Principle of Utility What is the guideline of your behavior and what does pleasure means to you? In Bentham’s book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, he gives a detailed explanation of principle of utility, a series of principles of behaviors. He thinks it is pleasure and pain that determine what human beings should do, and the motivation of humans’ behaviors can be attributed to the pursuit of happiness or the evasion of pain. Besides, he states that a good action should increase the happiness or diminish the pain, otherwise the action will be harmful to the whole community.
