Mill’s Utilitarianism Compared to Kantian Ethical Theory
by How would Mill and Kant respond to the following question: “Is it better to be good or to do good?” What reasons could each give in support of the method of ethics he adopts?
Kant’s and Mill’s moral theories of, respectively, Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. More specifically, I will examine the methods of introduction and bases of support, thus highlighting the assumptions made and the logical arguments for these assumptions. The aim of the paper is to clearly explain how the two philosophers arrive at different conclusions, Kant believing it better to be good and Mill believing it better to do
good. I shall present the paper in two sections. In Part I, I will define the terms used to support these sides and in doing so proceed to outline the key elements of each philosopher’s argument. In Part II, I will further elaborate on the theories by critiquing each philosopher’s argument with an in-depth example, revealing my own personal views on the subject.
Part I
Of primary importance to this topic is a definition of the terms “to be good” and “to do1, and the latter as directly synonymous with the system of “Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle”2 advocated by John Stuart Mill. Thus, Kant, who argues that the good will is the only thing which can be “taken as good without qualification”3, would argue on these grounds that it is better to good”. The former will be taken as an indication of what Immanuel Kant refers to as “good will”be good. On the other hand, Mill, who holds actions as right “in proportion as they tend to promote happiness”4, would correspondingly argue that it is better to do good. Each philosopher believes his own moral theory to be fully justified, and both philosophers offer strong support for their respective points of view.
Yet despite the compelling arguments demonstrated by both thinkers, neither theory is completely airtight. It is, as Mill admits, impossible to provide a proof in the traditionally accepted sense5 of the word for his theory; the “[q]uestions of ultimate ends”6 that Mill deals with are simply not “amenable to direct proof”7. He concedes, for this reason, the fact that he can only show something to be good by means of a common admittance of its being good without proof. We as readers are thus asked to accept an equivalence to proof, namely, the presentation of considerations “capable of determining the intellect either to give or withhold its assent to the doctrine”8 – we must judge for ourselves the validity of Mill’s assumptions and of his arguments. The support Kant gives for his theory, though not stated to be explicitly as such, is no different in this respect. The foundation of his argument is based upon the key assumption that good will is the only pure and untainted good, and thus the only true basis of moral philosophy. Despite Kant’s complex logical arguments and myriad of examples supporting this assertion and exposing its roots, it remains an assumption nevertheless.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Post CommentRoger Penney
On January 31, 2008 at 10:43 am
This did explain well the position of the two men. Perhaps it would be interesting to discuss what “being good” is and what it is to “do good”. Mill says it is to do with happiness and tries to formulat a felicific calculus. However he does not explain how a person may judge befroehand how he may do good. How does one know that the result of one’s action or one’s words will be “the greatest good to the greatest number”? Of course one may point to similar actions but we may not be equipped to estimate all the circumstances so again our foresight will be not without fault.
Kant seems to argue for some, rather mysterious faculty for knowing what is good. He also has the idea of the categorical imperative that what one does, in order to be good must be so in all places at all times.
In both cases too much is left to human judgement. The good, whatever they think must be an absolute and so entirely outside our human condition. Plato gets the nearest to it apart from Christian thinking and belief. ‘The Good’ for him is something ‘out there’ so much so that one needs long training as a philosopher in order to aspire to seeing it. This, if we go along this road, makes us as elitist as Plato was. I could be wrong here but I believe that all humans, brain damage apart, are capable of wisdom and of philosophical discussion.
Plato, through Socrates, argues that ‘knowledge is virtue’ and can be taught. However this is a weak argument, I have dealt with it elsewhere, and it does not tell us what exactly ‘the good’ is.
Kant and Mill were looking for an ethical system apart from God and I do not think that is possible.
Nearly Anonymous
On January 31, 2008 at 11:18 am
Interesting. However, I’m not sure if we can ever know if the good is “outside of our human condition”. Indeed, would anything be good at all, if there were no beings around to decide? Plato’s belief that the good is “out there”, to me, seems as unjustified as his belief that the Forms are “out there” too. Even Aristotle believed that the question of what is good was an inherently human inquiry.
Of course, if you add God into the equation, everything becomes considerably simpler. If God exists as a deciding agent, the good need not hinge on the human condition. However, this would be an extremely unpalatable position for an atheist to take!
Jesus=Lord
On February 29, 2008 at 12:44 am
Being good is a transformation that takes place on the inside of you and your motives are pure. Doing good is what people do when they want to be recognized and for people to think that they are really special. A great example would be the difference between a true Christian and a person who pretends to be one but is not truly dedicated to living a holy life. A true Christian is filled with the love of Jesus and can’t help being good because Jesus is good and fills their souls with good. A fake Christian will always want to cover up who they really are by performing all these good things with impure motives and they are always thinking about themselves more than others. For example, they may say that they want to collect money for the poor, which is a good deed, but secretly they are going to take 90% of the collection and buy themselves a new car with it.
Nearly Anonymous
On February 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Well done, Jesus=Lord.
reba
On April 25, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I am new at philosphy theories by Kant or Mill or any of them. But Nearly Anonymous explained Utility vs. Kant quite well. I think I shall be able to ponder these theories and finish my paper for philo. class on time. Thanks for sharing
Medea
On August 25, 2008 at 9:39 am
Good article. Why cant I see the footnotes?
Anonymous
On March 10, 2010 at 1:50 am
You really helped me differentiate the two and had an example that really shed light on the two philosophers differences. Well done.
kelly
On May 19, 2010 at 1:30 pm
i love dis..i av a final nd u jst helped me out
Anon
On October 2, 2010 at 1:09 am
I am also making a philsophical paper on this topic. At first, I have chosen Utilitarianism. But I was eventually confused as I read more articles on this and even worse, I almost changed my mind and choose Kantian Ethics. Thanks to Nearly Anonymous, I am back at my first choice again.