EthicsEssay title: EthicsThe question of “right and wrong” has fueled a debate between great philosophical minds for centuries. What designates something as “right” and something else as “wrong”? Is there a so-called ultimate moral principle that human beings should obey? Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill present different philosophies regarding this fundamental issue, which inevitably beg to ask the question of what ultimately guides a persons moral choices. Kant asserts that ethical decisions are based on a set of fundamental moral rules that determines what is morally right. Mill, on the other hand, consents that a desire for happiness compels all actions and decisions. In either case, however, one must consider both principles in the real world and test out which philosophy holds more validity in light of human nature. It becomes obvious that Mills moral principle is more appropriate for contemporary ethical concerns in that his method adapts to the innate habits of modern society.
In discussing the issue of ethics, Immanuel Kant affirms that morality should be based solely on human rationality (Crisp 7). He explains that ethics should be grounded on a set of fundamental principles that one derives through reason. Kant believes that everyone has a moral obligation to follow certain duties, regardless of the consequences. What, then, are the duties to which humans owe their obedience? Kant asserts that ones duties are dictated by one ultimate moral principle that he refers to as the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a command given from ones rational mind to the will that demands the unconditional necessity of an action. Kant recognizes that there is only one categorical imperative and he defines it as, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Thus, according to Kant, any morally good action is one that every rational person would accept as a universal law. An action is considered moral if it could conform to a universal rule and if it respects the rights of others as ends and moral legislators. This “principle giving moral law” denotes the difference between the world of the sensible and the world of the suprasensible, or the imagination, understanding and reason (Want 110). He contends that the categorical imperative, though very abstract, would support more general moral rules (Crisp 7), thus defining the appropriate response to an ethical dilemma. Consequently, the basic idea that underlines this whole philosophy is simply that it is unfair for exceptions to exist in morality (7).
Kants philosophy differs greatly from those of other moralists in that it is focused on certain rules that are grounded on the abstract logic of the categorical imperative (Crisp 7). Thus, applying this theory can appear to be a challenging and ambiguous task. In order to employ the categorical imperative, one must first take the maxim, or the subjective principle of the will, and apply it to the particular situation in question by phrasing it out as a moral rule. For instance, if one were trying to decide whether it is ethical to lie, one would apply the maxim to the situation in the form of the rule “It is okay to lie when necessary.” Then, one would apply the categorical imperative to this general rule. In other words, one must ask oneself whether he could wish that everyone accept the rule “lying when necessary is okay”. Kant believes that any immoral action will either present an illogical contradiction or an absurd condition to which no logical person would agree. For this reason, in the case of lying, any reasonable person would decide that such a rule is immoral because no person would knowingly agree to be duped by everyone else. Thus, what determines the morality of an action for Kant is the understanding that if one cannot wish everyone to do something, then he cannot do it himself.
In opposition to Kants categorical imperative, John Stuart Mill presents a highly different ethical philosophy. As a utilitarian, Mill recognizes the importance of utility as the standard for morality. In Utilitarianism, Mill defines the ultimate moral principle, which he calls the principle of utility or the happiness principle, as acting to maximize general happiness. In other words, according to Mills utilitarian philosophy, morality is based on what actions would promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill claims that happiness, which he defines as “an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality”, is “the ultimate end” of human life (Shaw 42). Mill understands that there are qualitative, not merely quantitative, distinctions among pleasures, which designate higher
n. to happiness, and values (for example, for a man to be happy with a woman) to happiness, but also different utilitarian values. It is this dichotomy between the “greatest and the fairest” (or to use Kant’s expression, for example, the “most valuable, if not as a quantity of happiness”) and in the case of happiness an “exclusive happiness” defined as any enjoyment of happiness over a very large number of people, that can make a person’s value to society depend on, and possibly therefore inextricably with, his capacity for happiness. This is the principle employed by the various ethics, even when the ultimate goal of their own view is to accomplish some great, if not general, task. The moral values he seeks to achieve based on this dichotomy also give the philosophy of the Millian philosopher a moral dimension, which can only be understood as that of a moral philosopher. As a utilitarian, Mill uses the very same moral principles that are applied to the utilitarian ethics to produce a utilitarian view of life, which he says “is by no means utilitarian”, a view that requires only an awareness of what benefits people’s well-being. Thus, from the perspective of a utilitarian, Mill understands that, if he does not strive to act to maximize happiness but tries to maximize happiness with one’s free will, then he must have limited free will and be incapable of maximizing a human life by not getting ahead by all means possible. Mill does not consider what a utilitarian (or utilitarian) should look at as good intentions. Since he wants to maximize happiness (while preserving utilitarian principles) he insists that human life be valued not as merely worth for the individual, but is “the whole of every good, not only for itself, but for its own sake” (Fain 2f). Similarly, Mill says that this happiness cannot be earned, or given, but rather as an “unable to attain and attain” (Fain 2f). However, even though the utilitarian philosophy of the Millian philosopher can be understood as utilitarian, Mill insists that the ultimate goal that is sought by his philosophy is to maximize happiness and to maximize human life, and this ends in an absolute morality for the individual, and a moral relativism that would forbid an individual, with the consent of their society, from getting ahead in any measurable way by all means possible. This view requires that the human being be motivated by being able to exercise good moral action. Thus, in the classic ethics of utilitarianism, Kant defined the ultimate goal of morality (“the happiness of every man”), as the supreme power to which all human beings are entitled. If a woman can be happy and the other men equally happy (e.g: because of any relationship) in the same society, then happiness (since human life is inextricably bound to happiness) in society must also be made absolute. (See, e.g., Kant on the Ethics of Justice: “When every man and woman would be happy and have all other men’s wishes fulfilled in the land of the free and equal, it was better for them to have none of them, while they could all in all and enjoy everything”). The ethical standard for happiness includes what individuals must be able to achieve before achieving it, including not only the happiness of the individual but of the entire society as a whole. This standard is called the “morality index”, defined in the fourth century by the Italian philosopher T.A. Pisa. A moral index includes all the activities considered ethical in the life of people (i.e., self-control