Post #4 - Kant & Mill

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Prussia. He was regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment movement. His most important works were the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Practical Reason, which examine the relation of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. I will focus on Kant’s ethical theory which can be found in The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), which is about his search for and establishment of the supreme principle of morality, and in The Critique of Practical Reason (1785). Kant was a proponent of deontological ethics, which is the study of duty. He believed that the only feature that gave an action moral worth was not the outcome, but the motive behind the action. Kant’s ethical theory focuses on a single moral obligation, which he called “categorical imperative,” which is duties that are intrinsically valid and good. Therefore, these categorical imperatives should be obeyed in all situations and circumstances in order to observe the moral law. He specified that the moral law is a principle of reason itself and is not based on what would make us happy.

Kant explains that we are not able to understand the total systematic knowledge of reason because of the spatiotemporal constraints on sensibility. Kant stated that freedom plays a central part in ethics because moral judgment uses it. Reason cannot act without the assumption of freedom because it is an indispensable practical function of it. Kant explains humans as being between two worlds; we are both sensible and intellectual. We neither act by natural impulse alone, nor are we free of non-rational impulses. Therefore, we need rules of conduct which guide us on how we should act when we have to power to choose. The morality of an action, therefore, must be assessed in terms of the motivation behind it not the outcome of it.

I suffered through the first section of the Kant reading. Kant explained that the only thing that is good for an individual in all situations is a good will. Good will is the action of duty, not because you want to do something but because you know you have to. Good will is good not because it accomplishes something but simply because it is good in itself. There are moral laws which all humans should follow in all situations. Kant also explained that no one can really prove or disprove the existence of God or the afterlife. Therefore, for the sake of society and morality, people should believe in both. When considering our actions with reference to the highest aim of life, our ultimate intentions have to be directed by moral interests only.

John Stuart Mill was born in 1806 and was a Utilitarian philosopher. He proposed the ‘harm principle’ which states that every individual has the right to act as he wants as long as it does not harm others. Mill also believed in free speech, since it is a necessary condition for intellectual and social progress. Mill also states that harm may include the action and the omission of an action. Mill also applies a similar idea when it comes to religion. He believes that everyone is rational enough to make decisions about which religion they want to follow.

Like all Utilitarians, Mill believes that one must always act so as to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. He contributes to this theory by the idea of qualitative separation of pleasure. He explains that ‘happiness’ is of higher value then ‘contentment’ because people who have experienced both tend to prefer the first one over the latter one. Mill was a big supporter of the free-market system, but accepted taxation on alcohol and legislative intervention for the purpose of animal welfare. He touches on the idea that even though this world can support a bigger population, he does not see how this is a desirable goal. Mill states that the destruction of the natural world will not amount in progression of mankind. He does point out that our technological advances will help solve the problems we will face with a more densely populated world. (I really hope he’s right..)

Mill, being a utilitarianist, believes that the moral worth of an action is determined by the outcome of this action. This is opposite from Kant who believes that the moral worth comes from the reason the person is carrying out the action, not the outcome of it. Utilitarianism focuses on actions which produce the most happiness for the most people. Kant had several objections to this moral evaluation because he felt this theory devalued the individuals it was supposed to benefit. He pointed out that following utilitarian theory, it is okay to sacrifice one individual for the benefit of others. Doing this would require not treating this individual as a means and not as themselves. Kant also has a problem with utilitarianism because he points out that it is a theory driven by pleasure and happiness, not reason, universal moral law, or duty. Mill argued that the cultural, intellectual, and spiritual pleasures are of greater value than physical pleasures. This is something Kant would agree with, as long as the individual was carrying out their duty and following the universal moral law.