Kant vs. Mill

An essay that illustrates theories on morality in our actions.

 

Throughout any well-operated society, a table of ethics have been founded to create the determination between right and wrong. In today’s modern world, the moral principles serve as a significant concepts in developing appropriate decisions for various individuals. These principles participate in the  daily lives of government officials, in determination of laws, American voters, and even in the most basic forms such as a raising a child. A well-known Utilitarian, John Stuart Mill and a supporter of absolutism, Emmanuel Kant, use their effective theories to dominate the field of ethics.

            Kant builds his principles in the rational thinking about actions influenced by duty. Duty identifies with the idea of a moral dedication to a particular thing or a person, and concentrates on contributing oneself to that duty without any egoistic motives such as recognition. According to Kant, morality of an action is determined through camouflaging duty as the preconditional experience of that action. With this in mind, Kant divides his principle into three different spheres; actions that are against duty, conformed with duty and done from duty.

 The first and most obvious to notice as an observer, appears the action taken against duty. An individual choosing to behave against duty, holds an essentially evil motive. Due to their deliberate immorality, such actions contain zero moral value. On the contrary, actions that are conformed and done with duty require a closer speculation in order to identify the true value of one’s behavior. In a performed action, where an individual becomes consumed by the duty, one wishes to create a desired self-image. Thus, such action consists strictly of the instrumental values, where the decision becomes controlled by a desire. In the end, the overall amount of  morality like in the previous case equals up to nothing.  With this in mind, the only actions that hold any moral worth are those that are performed from duty and hold an intrinsic value. The morality of the action relies significantly on performing the deed from duty, with no strings attached . According to Kant, the  main concepts in determining the ethics of one’s action lie in the preconditions of that particular experience.  With this in mind, the time period before the action is  performed , establishes the morality of the action. The experience itself lacks any contribution to the overall ethical value.  Kant refutes the idea in  righteousness of actions that are set in  guidelines of good consequences and greater happiness. Instead, the action becomes righteous when it is  performed to satisfy the demands of duty set up through the moral laws.  These moral laws are universal, and rely on the idea of rational will. Rational will discusses  the capability of the reason to arise that will. However  will’s  stability relies  strictly on the conception of laws, known as imperatives.

 Kant identifies two types of imperatives, hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperatives relate to the actions performed for a sense of accomplishment, and mainly hold the ingredients of the instrumental value. In contrast, the categorical imperative focuses on the  intrinsic value and moral obligation of the deed  while abandoning all of its empirical content. Therefore any moral action must have a genuine purpose behind it, otherwise its ethical value drains completely. This type of imperative plays a major role in Kant’s evaluation of moral principles. He divides  it into two formulations, one of which essentially centers  around “acting on the maxim of action that should become a universal law”, meaning applying the intrinsic values only and acting with a pure purpose will determine the deed as moral. The second dimension of the imperative establishes that each rational agent holds the capability of living according the universal laws, and therefore represents  the phenomenon of the intrinsic value. For this purpose, its only moral to treat all individuals as an end in themselves, not as a means.

To illustrate Kant’s theory more effectively , the babysitter’s case may be used to examine  the  principles of morality experienced  in every day consequences. In this particular case,  the owner of the house, faces obstacles in deliberating  on   offering her address to the full time babysitter, who would  beneficially use it to enroll her young  daughter into the local public school. The babysitter’s local neighborhood also offers a public elementary school, but its awful conditions made her consider private school as the only possible option for her child. Due to the private school’s numerous payments and  fees,  enrolling her daughter would create a major financial instability within the household. In order to determine the right decision, the motivation behind the action must be evaluated. This leads back to the value theory of actions determined by the field of  duty. Acting against duty in this case, would result in the owner deliberately not offering the address while  knowing the future crucial circumstances. Such action holds no ethical component, and automatically should be eliminated. On the contrary, if the owner suggests her address , several guidelines contribute to the overall morality. 

One must look into the ingredients of instrumental and intrinsic values within the decision. If the owner chose to offer her help primarily to  satisfy her internal desires, then the action was conformed by the duty, and the moral value of that action is empty. In this case, both parties benefit from the decision, where the babysitter won’t have to pay for her daughter’s education and the house owner’s  internal desire will be satisfied. Such  action categorizes itself into the hypothetical imperative and therefore eliminates its own ethics. Although, if the owner suggests her address as an action guided by intrinsic motives, then it classifies under the deed performed from duty, and carries itself into the field of categorical imperative. There, it is interpreted that  the maxim of the owner’s action holds internal motivation, and becomes a universal law. The last step in identifying the morality of her action, all individuals must be treated as an end in themselves, not a means. With this in mind, it is important to interpret that none of the members in the case are being taken advantage of, and are treated as rational agents.

therefore according to Kant offering the address appears as the only action containing moral worth in this scenario. However, the overall idea of such example is inverted with the moral principles developed by John Stuart Mill.

In his  Utilitarian theory, Mill formulates the greatest happiness concept, where each individual must act in such a way as to create  greatest happiness for greatest amount of people. Therefore, when choosing the right decision one must weigh each choice individually and choose the one where  the greatest amount of the  affected members in the  decision are happy.  In addition, Mill separates  happiness into two distinct categories of quantity and quality. Quantitative pleasures usually refer to the bodily stimulations rather than emotional. Such pleasures are significantly short and insignificant  when compared to qualitative. In qualitative happiness, the whole process of pleasure relies  strictly on the emotional and mental fields of an individual, and last  relatively longer than the quantitative pleasures.  Hence, important to keep in mind, the capability of a smaller qualitative and mental pleasure  outweighing several pleasures consumed with quantitative characteristics.  Mill draws his morality for one’s  actions in the framework of every individual’s happiness and only the outcome of the decision, rather than the motives behind like portrayed in Kant’s theory.

Such contrast leads Mill’s theory to be tested in the above case of the babysitter. The owner of the house struggles in her decision of offering the address. In all acts , both parties are greatly affected. If  the woman settles on refusing the  suggestion of  her help, then the babysitter’s happiness vanishes out of the picture. The primary goal consists of finding happiness for both ,the babysitter and her manager. If the woman chooses to offer her address, then babysitter’s interests are satisfied and such act minimizes the financial burden and therefore pain. However, one must consider the happiness of the other party as well. With her address, the woman doesn’t only provide financial stability for her worker, but establishes a stronger bond which gives out qualitative pleasure.

Unlike Kant, the motive behind the woman’s decision appears insignificant in any case of  Mill’s theory. Even if the owner’s act consisted of  instrumental value , and the consequence produced greatest amount of happiness, then Mill would classify such action of  moral value. Once again, Mill concludes that  the consequence of the action determines its overall ethics. Both philosophers address their points effectively, however reasoning behind one’s actions  holds stronger position  in morality than the consequence of that action. Kant provides a justice theory, by stating that morality develops in the preexperience of the deed, where humans outweigh the justification for their actions. Kant replaces Mill’s theory by eliminating an egoistic two way street process, and focuses on the righteousness behind the action rather than self happiness.