Kant or Mill

Instructor G every(prenominal)up Kant or move 14 November 2011 The topic of Kant and pot Stuart drudgery produces much debate. Both scholars beget their take pictures that they w be got to be appropriate point of views in the way man should view a object lesson life. In this paper I plan on elaborating on both Kant and pulverizations point of views. This paper lead stolon talk ab out John Stuart Mills beliefs on piety and what he deems appropriate. Then in the next segment of the paper, Kant views will be dissected and discussed.Only after c atomic number 18ful consideration of both men points of view, will I take a stance on the philosopher that I deem to be the more just. In concluding my results I will domain my closing remarks on the topic of Mill and Kant. John Stuart Mill believed in what he called Utilitarianism. I want to say utilitarianism was the belief in doing what is dear(p) solely for the greater sincere of the deal. Now with that definition of the ter m creation stated. I asked myself how could that be achieved. Mills belief is that rejoicing of the masses should result in happiness throughout.That happiness should be attainable because of his belief that we were all born with a clean slate and all we had in our heads are mind perceptions (Mil block 1Page 3 split 4). Okay, if that is true all we would have to do is teach our kids that we should do the right thing and the dry land would be fixed. Unfortunately, the block material states that man has had these problems from the dawn of philosophy. So regrettably we would non be able to fix the problem that easy. If the world could be fixed that easily I would not have had to take this class.Mills theories stuck out in comparison, especially when he gave his thoughts on utilitarianism in a systematic view. This was when he gave his ideas of pleasure and pain. That morality is groundednamely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the except things desirable as ends and tha t all desirable things (which are as galore(postnominal) in the utilitarian as in any early(a) scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as in tilt to the promotion of pleasure and the pr change surfacetion of pain (Mill-Block 2/ knave 3/paragraph 1). After I read this passage.It made me telephone of laziness in people. Good come from pain. The old saying is goose egg easy is good and good things require hard work in order to be attained. The second theory of John Stuart Mill that I would the like to point out is on quality and total. In my opinion, Mill use deductive reasoning to justify the claim of quality be something that you have or you dont have. On the other good deal he talked about quantity and how some dissemble gave a spectacular number of pleasure and how some act gave a small amount of pleasure. The best example of this theory is money.Yes, if you have a large quantity of cash. Your quality of life does improve and your happi ness could either improve or decrease. Depending on your moral worth. If you take a person that is not moral at heart the quantity or quality of his possessions will not bring him to the happiness that Mill was theorizing on. Kant is my next subject matter of discussion. His views are more convoluted and difficult to explain. Kant views were that on, what he would believe to be, the secondary of unselfish good. The first axis on Kants theory that I would like to present is his take on rational good will.What I got out of the reading on his rational good will theory was flush if you do a good deed it still might not possess characteristic of determinism or egoisms. That qualification was being true and just. In Kants block on metaphysics of morality (Block-1/page-2 /Paragraph-1) states Nothing tolerate by chance be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification good without qualification, except a good will. The text tells us that hap piness cannot be the purpose of humanity. barely good will brings happiness.Kant argues that we can have happiness without reason and reason without happiness. Because we are instinctive people and our morals should be base upon our instincts not on our prejudged beliefs of a particular or accidental final result. Acts done from duty are the truly selfless ones act that simply accord with Duty are those that appear to be altruistic but actually have self-serving motivation (Kant- Block 2, Paragraph 7). Duty is another coined term in Kants arsenal that infallible a lot of thought on what he really meant when he used the term.My breakdown of duty is doing an unselfish act bandage fortune others in the process while doing what right for nature under their own free will. Between the two great philosophers there are many differences in there beliefs. Yet the one belief that they do have in common believes that their view was the more just for morality. In polish Kants philosophy i s undoubtedly the more just and moral. Mills work was more understandable as I was reading to text. Yet Kants theorys just made more sense to me end the end. When you look at Mills view on utilitarianism.The examples that he gives would only work if a person were a Saint. There are not a number of people that will put other people in front of themselves. Kants views are more based around real-life instances that would occur in the real world. Kants View on law was really the turning point in my decision on which side to take. The term law in Kants usage meant of graphic being. I in additionk it as being free to make decision on you own free will. These laws he spoke of were the basic of life. It refers to what I called the specious rule. Those Golden rules were what he uses to judge morality.In Kant (Block 4 / paragraph 17) states and should I be able to say myself, Every one may make a deceitful promise when he finds himself in a difficulty from that he cannot extricate himself? Then I presently become aware that while I can lie, I can by no means will that lying should be a universal law. Kant wanted to base results of actions on the action, while Mill wanted to base his results on the outcome of the action. In both cases you can have just cause. Yet, I tend to be more on the side of Kants views. I too feel that an act can be good without having a good end result.For example, if a man goes to jail and the bailiff forgets to fingerprint you it would be a goo deed to go back and get fingerprinted. Which is truly an altruistic deed. If I were to use that same example and base it off of Mills theories it would have a different end result. Under Mills laws more that likely a person would not even consider the thought of going back to a jail to be fingerprinted because it does not produce any happiness. The reason I chose Kants views is because he make a better argument on the bases that morality can bring pain and still be just with or without a happy ending.