Kant Vs. Mills
Essay Preview: Kant Vs. Mills
Report this essay
In any functioning society, a system of morals must be present to establish what is right and wrong. Nearly everything in a community is at least loosely based on a code of morals: laws, traditions, government policies, and even simple relationships, such as business transactions. Without such a system society would crumble, since daily operations depend so heavily on shared ethics. In the U.S., a Judeo-Christian ethic largely dominates the culture, but problems still arise. While certain basic valuesЖsuch as “thou shalt not kill”Жcan be agreed upon by most of the population, it seems that no single, cohesive moral guideline has been widely accepted, despite the existence of several. Emmanuel Kant, advocating absolutism, and John Stuart Mill, who supports utilitarianism, represent two of the most prominent theories. Both Kant and Mill provide noble visions of morality, and center their thoughts on respectable principles that focus the rest of their works.
One principle lies at the heart of both utilitarianism and absolutism. Kant places great faith in the human mind, particularly its ability to use “pure reason,” as opposed to “empirical reason.” In a straightforward way, he explains that “all philosophy insofar as it is founded on experience may be called empirical, while that which sets forth its doctrines entirely on a priori principles may be called pure (Kant, p. 1).” Any conclusions made through sense experience are termed empirical, whereas a doctrine based on a priori thoughtsЖusing only reasonЖis termed pure. Empirical philosophy, for the most part, can become subjective, but pure reason is solely objective.
For Kant, an objective perspective is required for any consideration of morality. He claims that “everyone must admit that if a law is morally validÐthen it must carry with it absolute necessity (Kant, p. 2).” A moral law, in the eyes of Kant, must be obligatory for all rational men. Further, “[everyone] must concede that the ground of obligation here must therefore be sought not in the nature of man nor in the circumstances of the world in which man is placed, but must be sought a priori solely in the concepts of pure reason (Kant, p. 2).” Again, the emphasis is placed on objective thought. The rationale for the absolute nature of moral law cannot be found through subjective reasoning, as Kant explains when he says that “man is affected by so many inclinations that, even though he is indeed capable of the idea of a pure practical reason, he is not so easily able to make that idea effective (Kant, p. 3).” Inclinations, the term used for desires and aversions, cloud the ability to discuss morality when empirical grounds are involved. Even an attempt to think objectively about a sense experience will lead to failure; therefore a priori principles are mandatory in Kants line of thinking.
The notion of the “good will” is related to the predominance of reason. A good will being the only thing “which can be regarded as good without qualification,” Kant claims that such a will is good “not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some proposed endÐ [but because] it is good in itself (Kant, p. 7).” A good will is simply good, better than “even the sum total of inclinations (Kant, p. 7).” Because of its benevolent nature, Kant sets the good will up as the goal of reason. If the purpose of human life were to pursue inclination, then “to this end would an implanted natural instinct have led much more certainly (Kant, p. 9).” There must be higher meaning, as Kant sees it, otherwise we would possess only instinct. Reason has its practical purposes, of course, but “its true function must be to produce a will which is not merely good as a means to some further end, but is good in itself (Kant, p. 9).” It is insufficient to develop a good will because it serves some ulterior motives, but because it is the greatest capability of a priori reasoning.
Through this belief, an immediate separation is made between inclination and morality. For a will to be good, it cannot be used in the pursuit of any end. In fact, Kant states that a good will is only truly displayed when a person ignores inclination to follow duty. Any action that appears to be moral, but is taken because it will achieve a certain end, is not a demonstration of the good will. Suicide is given as an example, since Kant believes that preserving ones life is a duty:
[size=9]”To preserve ones life is a duty; and furthermore, everyone has also an immediate inclination to do so. But on this account the often anxious care taken by most men for it has no intrinsic worth, and the maxim of their action has no moral contentÐ…On the other handÐ…if an unfortunate man, strong in soul and more indignant at his fate than despondent or dejected, wishes for death and yet preserves his life without loving itÐ…then his maxim indeed has moral content (Kant, p. 10).”[/size]
By maxim, Kant merely refers to the basic justification for an action. So what he illustrates in this model is the difference between a moral action done because of inclination, and a true moral action of the good will, which is done out of duty. Again, it is shown that the good will is good in itself, as are any of the actions that it wills.
Using this as his basis, Kant begins to derive his central principle of morality. Staying true to the good will, he states that a person “should never act except in such a way that [one] can also will that my maxim should become a universal law (Kant, p. 14).” For any moral action, a person should make his decision as if the action would become a universal law for all rational beings. Thereby, by attempting to make an exception even once, the “maxim would necessarily destroy itself just as soon as it was made a universal law (Kant, p. 15).” If a universal law is not followed absolutely, it can no longer be called a universal law. Kant refers to this approach as the categorical imperative. When “the action is represented as good in itself, and hence as necessary in a will which of itself conforms to reason as the principle of the will, then the imperative is categorical (Kant, p. 25).” Any rational person that possesses a good will necessarily follow the categorical imperative, because it mandates actions that are good in themselves.
When each individual holds the ability to recognize which maxims constitute a universal law, the categorical imperative must be expanded. Since every rational being thinks of himself as an end in himself, as far as morality is concerned, all people