Mill’s Utilitarianism Compared to Kantian Ethical Theory

To further illustrate the differences between Mill and Kant, one might imagine a similar scenario in which my roommate was not present. Let us imagine that I were to take the money from him without his knowledge and donate it to the Cleaning Lady Gift Fund, and that he, being terribly unskilled in the art of keeping track of money, would never find out. To Kant, this would clearly exhibit immoral behaviour. I would have used other rational beings as a means and not as ends in and of themselves20. In addition, my actions would have been for self-interest, contrary to the objective selfless quality found in a truly good will. Mill, on the other hand, would be more inclined to gloss over the fact that I was using other people as a means and not ends. Instead, his concentration would be aimed primarily at assessing the overall utility of the situation, attempting to judge whether or not the overall happiness was greater as a result of my actions. The cleaning lady’s happiness would certainly be increased by the gift. My happiness would also certainly be increased by my giving of the gift and the resulting greater feeling of security. My roommate, to whom a wrong had been done, would not exhibit any change in happiness since he, being a bad money-organiser, would remain ignorant and thus unaffected by his loss. Clearly, then, the overall utility is increased in this scenario as well.

My personal inclinations in this example are clearly evident; I would, under the said circumstances, be tempted to take the money from my roommate. However, it is also clear to me that I would have been unable to do so without definite feelings of guilt or shame. As a consequence of this understanding, I can clearly recognise an unconscious part of myself that is drawn to the ideas Kant preaches, of selfless good will and the inherent wrong of using people as means. However, at the same time I find myself drawn to the Utilitarian system for two reasons. My primary reason is simple: I believe that the concept of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, despite being labelled a cold and calculating theory, is nevertheless a worthy concept. I believe it is more important to utilise the intellect than to, like Natalie in the example, simply choose without thinking21. At the risk of sounding baselessly opinionated, I must assert: I am, like Mill, unable to offer any direct proof for this other than the fact that I strongly feel it to be so – “admitted to be good without proof”22.

Perhaps, in my second reason for supporting Utilitarian theory over Kantian ethics, I might be redeemed: as a history major, I have chosen Mill over Kant based on historical evidence. Countless times throughout the course of history, terrible results have been derived from good intentions. Mao Zedong, for example, would be praised by the Kantian school of thought for his essentially good intentions in making China into a worldly, competitive nation23. He would, however, be condemned by the Utilitarian school of thought for his unintentional slaughter of millions of Chinese peasants through poorly executed mass campaigns24. Though I can recognise what many historians cite as, and what I believe to be, Mao’s good intentions for the Chinese people, I find it difficult to simply ignore the irrefutably disastrous outcome of his actions.

Thus my exploration of both thinkers’ moral theories through their main points, combined with an in-depth example to highlight their differences, has allowed me to choose between them: it is better, as Mill holds out, to do good than, as Kant would argue, to be good.