Moral Theories: Kant and J.S Mill Essay

Through bring out this paper, I ordain line of business and comp atomic number 18 two example theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a oecumenic incorrupt code. The two honourable theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S drudgery cast created two distinctly divers(prenominal) theories on morality and how to develop a widely distributed moral code. Both theories pore on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our affections can be mensural and defined as chastely correct, where as loaf believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and gists of our answerions to evoke the nigh delight for the most people. heretofore though both philosophers take a crap incredibly contrary points, each encompasses severe arguments as well as issues with their approach. However, Kant pass on be successful in articulating a better universal mo ral surmise through the use of his mat imperative.Immanuel Kant and his cornerstone for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) attempts to uncover a universal moral principal for all to use. accord to Kant, we atomic number 18nt exclusively hit the sackers, we argon in like manner doers as we knead and constitute certain(p) decisions in the world. He wants to be intimate what decisions we should catch and how should we treat people in this diverse world. He contemplates the use of infixed whole toneings of approval or disapproval to know when something is right or terms, but deems in that location are m any(prenominal) problems with this has noticeings are endlessly changing. Kant believes that honorable leave and sincere pass on alone is corking in itself without qualification. Understanding, wit, the power of judgment, and like talents of the mind, some(prenominal) they might be called, or courage, resoluteness, patience in an intention, as qualities of temperamen t, are without query in some respects serious and to be wished for but they can also suit extremely evil and harmful, if the provide that is to make use of these gifts of nature, and whose peculiar arrangement is on that pointfore called character, is non satisfactory. (Kant, 1785) In this quote, Kant is give tongue to that even though at that place are characteristics that are seemingly good some(prenominal)(prenominal) as intelligence and courage, if these things can be use for evil, they are not at bottom itself without qualification good. So good will is the still thing good and is the seat of Kants moral philosophy. Essentially, Kants goeson to explain that even if you produce a positive outcome with your action, if it lacked goodwill as an intention, it meets the criteria of a moral action, but is not good in itself. The good will is good not through what it termination or accomplishes, not through its readiness for attaining any intended end, but only throug h its willing, i.e., good in itself, and considered for itself, without comparison, it is to be estimated far higher than anything that could be brought approximately by it in favor of any inclination, or indeed, if you prefer, of the sum of all inclinations. (Kant, 1785) and so its neither the outcome nor the effect of the action, its the inner state of the will itself that determines morality. Kant describes two types of imperatives that can be used to evaluate intentions. The first is hypothetical imperatives, which gain to someone who is dependent on having certain ends to the action. Example, a person may act in a certain instruction only to receive something in return. Kants Categorical Imperative is the one he uses to evaluate motives of actions. The categorical imperative is absolute, universal, overbearing commands and can be defined by Act only according to that byword whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. harmonize to Kant, re asons and motives are e realthing and count far much than the action itself. If you act in goodwill, it is moral. Even if the action causes unintended harm, if it had good intentions and that alone, it is moral.I agree with much of his theory and how we ought to act in slipway that only hold in the beat out intentions behind them by performing in goodwill. The problem with Kants moral theory is that, even though it is all important(predicate) and necessary to act in goodwill, to brush aside a positive, good action bonnie because it lacks fixly good intentions is flawed in my opinion. Even though Kant does acknowledge that behavior and actions that produce a good outcome or consequence is in occurrence aligned with morality, he believes if you do anything that benefits you is misuse. As a personal example, I tender and produce good actions because not only do I know it is right, or the good thing to do, but it gives me a sense of purpose. I feel good putting people before myself. some(a) people will do elegant things for others because it makes them feel good as well. In my opinion, if people love to help others and act inethically sound ways because it gives them a feeling of approval, and the action is cause a positive consequence, that should be moral. It should be a wonderful thing that macrocosm can actually have feel good chemicals run through there body when assisting humanity. Kant should take this into consideration that if we feel good acting in good ways, it is more likely to be sustainable. fast one Stuart poor boy and Jeremy Bentham have been recognized as the founders of utileism. Contrary to Kants moral theories, utilitarians would disagree with most of Kants theory. While Kant believed that it is the intention of the action that should be recognized as moral or unmoral, J.S Mill and Bentham would say that it is in detail the outcome of said action that determines morality.Mill attempts to settle disputes about right and wrong w ith his theory of Utilitarianism, which is his moral theory that is found on the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill believes that actions are morally sound or risky in proportion to how much happiness is produced. He defines happiness as joy and the absence of pain and believes that happiness is the sole basis of morality. Mill says that our actions have a teleological structure to them, and introduces the principal of utility, which states that actions are right as long as they promote happiness of frolic, and are wrong is the actions tend to cause unhappiness or pain.However, Mill argues in his work that pleasure can differ in eccentric and quantity. Bentham offers a hedonistic calculus as a way of quantifying happiness or pleasure. He lists 6 hedonistic measurements as criteria intensity, duration, proximity or remoteness, fecundity, purity and extent. around of our societys laws, rules and regulations can be compared to utilitarian principals as it actually effectual to think in terms of what is best for the greatest amount of people. Although Mill makes very good conclusions and has done a comparatively good job at ontogenesis a universal moral code, there are some issues with his theory. The problem with J.S Mills Utilitarianism theory is that it is a moral based primarily onhappiness. The specimen of happiness cannot be measured for everything and is much more complex than Mill expresses it to be in his theory. Not everyones translation of happiness will be the same, and in many cases, one persons happiness is not the same as anothers. Therefore, there can be huge conflict depending on different people.Both moral theories have very untroubled points and in theory, can be used as universal moral principals. However, each argument from both Kant and the Utilitarians have problems with them and weak points. I personally believe that both theorists make good points. I agree with Kant in that morality is defined by intention s and that we ought to have goodwill and good intentions that follow the categorical imperative, however disagree in that if we do anything to better ourselves that it is no longer morally correct. With utilitarianism, I potently believe that we should be looking out for the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, but strongly disagree with that personal happiness should be the measurement. As a selfish, entitled society, I believe that solely acting out of happiness could be detrimental to the well-being of the planet. In conclusion, I believe that Kants moral theory is the best. Even though our society can be deemed at utilitarian and Mill does make strong points, I personally believe that Kants morals, when applied and taken seriously, could become a solid universal moral code. pee-pee CitedKant, Immanuel & Wood, Allen (2002). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Retrieved from http//www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/Kant%20-%20groundwork%20for%20the%20met aphysics%20of%20morals%20with%20essays.pdfNotes from class-Lesson on Kant-Lesson on Utilitarianism