Post #4: Kant and Mill

Explain in depth Kant’s ethical theory, Mill’s ethical theory, and, most importantly, compare and contrast them.

Kant
Kant’s ethical theory is not based on empirical evidence. Kant’s intent is to approach ethics with the concepts that we formulate in our minds, or “a priori,” rather than the concepts that have been formulated as a result of experience, or “a posteriori.” Kant reasons that by ridding ethics of “a posteriori” concepts he can eliminate consequential ethics and illuminate “deontological ethics.” Kant claims that “a priori” concepts originate from a place of “good will,” or a place where to be good without qualification is to be good no matter what. It is from this place of “good will” that we are able to understand “deontological ethics.” The concept of the “good will” allows Kant to make a clear distinction between the “good will” and the human will. This distinction allows Kant to claim that “a priori” concepts conform to moral law. Thus, Kant presupposes that prior to individual experience, man shares a common link into the concept of the “good will.” It is from this link that all of humanity aims to seek out the highest moral law. Kant’s focus on the “good will” allows him to stress the importance of having and acting from “good will.” There are no requirements, no penalties; there are no winners or losers when acting from the “good will.” The bottom line is anything that comes from a “good will” is good in itself no matter what the circumstances are. Simply stated, a “good will” acts because it has to be unconditionally good.

Kant continues by placing an emphasis on practical reason in relation to a “good will.” Kant claims the function of reason separates the rational being from man. He states that reason helps the rational being recognize that there are two separate causalities: nature and freedom. According to Kant, the rational being operates from freedom and man operates from nature. This is important because the rational being wants something more than mere existence. Kant posits that the rational being understands he has a choice and is not a victim of circumstance. The rational being chooses to go beyond circumstance and self. Without reason, there are no moral grounds; with reason, we are given the tools to set moral grounds. A “good will” is practical reason that has duly imposed duty upon itself. This duty, “good will,” practical reason places upon itself is the unconditional end, the “deontological ethics” Kant wanted to illuminate.

According to Kant, duty is an obligation of a “good will.” In respect to duty, we ought to act from duty because we can. Which brings us to “two kinds of laws produced by reason:” “hypothetical imperative” and the “categorical imperative.” According to Kant, when one is acting on the “hypothetical imperative,” one is acting on behalf of morality because it is a “rule of action for achieving that end.” When one is acting on the “categorical imperative,” one is acting for nothing more than the end in itself; because it is the rule for “moral action.” Kant clarifies that man adheres to the “hypothetical imperative,” and the rational being adheres to the “categorical imperative.” The rational being follows the “categorical imperative” because it is the one law that states, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” The “categorical imperative” is based on nothing more than the end in itself.

Mill
Mill claims consequences of action influences whether or not people find moral worth in their actions. He presents the question: as a result of action, does one want to experience pleasure or pain? Mill posits that every human being chooses pleasure over pain because “it is morally demanded of us.” It is morally demanded of us because human beings “must seek pleasure.” Mill continues that a “maximization of pleasure” insures that man will be at his best because his desires will be satiated. Yet, he continues, one must be discerning in which pleasures he pursues because not all pleasures are worthy of pursuit. According to Mill, because man must seek out pleasure, he should understand that “Some experiences are qualitatively better than others, and in determining which line of action is better, this has to be part of the calculation.” That is when one is capable of determining which pleasure truly add to his living well in all facets of his life, he will move beyond simple pleasures and “self-interest.” Mill thinks man will see that pleasure of the “qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends.” Mill concludes that since every man is satisfied and happy, “the overall effect will be to maximize the pleasure for all.”

Compare/Contrast
Kant and Mill diverge in that Kant thought that one must act on duty, whereas, Mill thought that one should act in the pursuit of pleasure. Kant’s “deontological ethics” is called the “categorical imperative.” Mill’s “maximization of pleasure” is called Utilitarianism. Kant thinks one should act from a “good will” and never use a person as an end to a means. In fact, Kant continues that any action performed should be performed for the end in itself and nothing more. Mill, on the other hand, thinks “ends are either pleasure or parts of pleasure.”