The Role of Dignity in Kants and Mills System - Essay Example

The Role of Dignity in Kant’s and Mill’s System Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill mention dignity as an important part of their systems. Mill describes a system of utilitarianism. Mill advocates for utilitarianism. Utilitarianism promotes happiness for the entire society and requires that all people act to promote this ‘happy state’. On the other hand, Kant’s system encourages action based on the good will. Although the two systems differ, dignity plays a fundamental role in both systems.

In both cases, appreciating human dignity influences an individual’s actions. According to Kant, dignity takes a central place in the good will philosophy. Kant argues that humanity equals dignity (Kant 173). Accordingly, all people should strive to protect the dignity of others by having good will in their actions. Having a bad will imply lack of respect for other people. If one has bad will, he or she is likely to exploit others and use them as just a means to achieve. This is the reason why Kant advocates for all people to have respect for each other’s dignity (Kant 30).

According to Kant, dignity drives people to perform their duties (Kant 97). In his system, people have to recognize their dignity for them take the responsibility of fulfilling their duties. These duties often have harmony with the laws of nature. In addition, any legislation in society must have a basis on dignity (Kant 94). It becomes apparent that appreciating human dignity of the self and of others is very crucial in Kant’s moral system. One will obey moral laws because of the dignity he or she attaches to self and to others.

In this way, no one will act treacherously as that will be betraying the human dignity. In addition, Kant argues that dignity sets human beings apart other animals in the kingdom that does not experience the sense of dignity (87). This emphasizes on the value of expressing our autonomy in duties that respect the dignity of other people. Being able to make autonomous decisions presents an individual with a sense of dignity. However, these decisions must have a good will basis for other humans.

It is evident that understanding human dignity is a fundamental aspect. In Kant’s system because it becomes reason enough for an individual to have good will in actions. In addition, it will move an individual to inculcate the sense of human dignity in children who are the future generation (Kant 38). On the other hand, Mill’s system advocates for an individual commitment to promote the happiness of others in society. The commitment will come from an understanding that humans have the capacity to attain a higher level of pleasure and happiness.

This higher status of pleasure denotes a mental pleasure that is without any form of pain. The reason why humans deserve this higher status of pleasure is that, since birth, they have a sense of dignity (Mill 11). This higher status only comes from learning, finding love and the satisfaction of performing task well. Understanding that an individual has a sense of dignity that makes him or her deserve a higher status of happiness is fundamental. Such an understanding will prompt one to assess whether the actions chosen will result to a higher level of satisfaction or not.

One will only indulge in activities that foster the well-being of self and others. In addition, understanding that each individual born has a sense of dignity will prompt people to avoid any conduct that can cause potential dissatisfaction and pain to others. Having the opportunity to enjoy the higher pleasure denotes dignity according to Mill. The higher status of happiness is the ultimate source of dignity. Even without achieving the satisfied state, an individual has dignity compared to an animal.

This comes out clearly, when Mill asserts that being a dissatisfied human being is a better state than being a satisfied pig (Mill 12). This makes it to be evident that human dignity is higher than any animal. Both Kant and Mill require developing a concept of dignity. For Kant, dignity defines human nature, and it should dictate the inner intentions of an individual. Having a clear understanding of the implications of dignity will move each individual to re-examine his or her will before acting.

On the other hand, Mill needs to develop a concept of dignity because it is this sense that makes a person deserving of higher pleasures. It is this concept that will convince society to strive to indulge in activities that uphold the dignity of human beings. According to Mill, this can only happen if every individual assesses whether the consequences of his or her actions promote the higher state that is the source of dignity. It is evident that, in both Kant’s and Mill’s system, a concept of dignity is necessary.

Understanding of the definition of dignity and its implications is a core part of each system. Both systems base their argument on understanding the relation of human nature and dignity. It becomes obvious that human beings have a sense of dignity higher than animals. In both systems, appreciating the value of human dignity will influence an individual’s dignity. Work Cited Kant, Immanuel, and Lara Denis. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2005. Print.

Mill, Stuart. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis:Hackett Pub Co Inc, 2002.Print.