Kant And Mill Similarities

1385 Words6 Pages
Immanuel Kant and John Samuel Mill have various similarities and differences on how we see the world. Where both will have, different ideologies referring to the cases of rescue I and rescue II. Kant and Mill are similar in multiple ways where both recognize the moral rules where Kant calls them duties and Mill calls them subordinate principles. Both have the subordinate principles where not to lie, no to stealing, and deprive from liberty from others. Appealing the consequences of the derived duties, where Kant considers the consequence of Maxim to become a universal law of nature, Mill considers the consequence of kind action. Evaluating the morality within ourselves they evaluate morality on the principle of what is wrong or right. As equally…show more content…
Value theory should it only be happiness? what if you think is all great and believe that the people that likes us we might be happy but we lack what is valuable. What if well-being is the think that is valuable, but the second part of this theory is theory of right action where could be problematic. Utilitarianism believes in if we prevent more deaths than one is an important thing, for example if A (saving 5 lives) is more valuable than B (saving one life) morally obligated to not suffer. Which some believe that torture to get to save someone’s life and that being the only option, which I will explain…show more content…
Where our choices should include everyone, as universal to be considered moral or immoral. His choice would be based on the common sense rather than what one feels on the time on having to choose. Kant believes in continuacion of life, where maintaining life is a moral action. In Rescue I we have to see who really is in danger, where all 6 people are in danger, how can you morally save five and kill one. We will have to follow one of the two wills which are autonomous: morality of respect to us having free will and heteronomous: respecting others morality. Kant uses the Heternomous will; pointing out that if you were put in the rescue of I you are the rescuer, as that being said you have to help even if you didn’t like it but it is your duty to save as many as possible. By that maxim is brought deciding wether this action is refered to being right, wrong, or permissible. In rescue II is partially different, because you must move the man to proceed to save the rest. The duty in this situation is to be able to safe everyone, but is it morally right to run over one and save the rest? I believe that Kant in this situation will try to save the first one and try to possibly help the rest. The duty is the main concept in this theory, our emotions have no choice in this situation, no matter if we choose right
Open Document