Kant and Mill Ideologies - Essay Example

Kant and Mill Ideologies According to John Stuart Mill, the fundamental principle of morality refers to the principle of utility, or Greatest Happiness Principle, which asserts that individuals tend to act in a manner that is most likely to derive maximum pleasure, satisfaction, and happiness to a wide range of people (LaFave 1). Indeed, Mill claims that people should value the principle of utility as a tool that derives secondary moral principles, which promote general happiness (Lee 1). The fundamental principle of morality means that happiness is intended pleasure and absence of pain where right actions promote happiness while wrong actions produce the reverse of happiness, which is unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. As such, we can judge people’s actions based on the secondary principles, which promote general happiness. On the other hand, Immanuel Kant defines the fundamental principle of morality as the Categorical Imperative which basis moral requirements on a standard of rationality (Johnson 1). He refers to the fundamental principle of morality as the law of an autonomous will where moral reasons are supreme to any other reason (Johnson 1). Ideally, one formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative encourages individuals to act on a motivational thought that one can consistently urge the society to adopt as a universal law as it will derive equal worth and equal respect. Notably, the Mill and Kant's fundamental principle of morality differ. Indeed, Mill abhors the utilitarian, which defines general happiness as a secondary moral principle that refers to happiness as intended pleasure and absence of pain, while Kant defines moral requirements and moral worthiness as acts of good will. According to Mill, we can tell the difference between higher pleasures and lower pleasures by analyzing the involvement of distinctively human faculties in dealing with any pleasure. He claims that we can ascertain the difference where a pressure is higher than another pleasure if and only if most people who have experienced both pleasures have always preferred the first to the second regardless of their respective quantities (Booher 1). For example, a person undergoing high pleasures of learning new things has a distinct experience in in his brain compared to a person undergoing low pleasures of eating and drinking. Indeed, Will objects to the idea that pleasure is the only good, it is the highest good, and it is universal (Booher 1). He claims that there are things that people consider and that there are differences in quantity and qualities of pleasure where certain pleasures are more desirable and valuable than others in relation to moral deliberations (Booher 1). Notably, Mill’s objection to the argument against utilitarianism should reckon the distinct value that pleasures attract with higher pleasures having more value than lower pleasures. It should also distinguish between the quantity and quality of pleasure as well as favor some activities as being better than others are. More so, his argument should address the problems that relate to differentiating quantities and qualities of pleasure. Ideally, Mill's account of higher pleasures answers the objection by demonstrating that certain pleasures are better and valuable than others (Booher 1). It also negates the idea that pleasure is highest natural good and confirms that higher pleasure is the basic principle of ethics, and the foundation of morality. According to Mill, human beings are different from non-human animals in a morally interesting way. Ideally, Mil noted that animals are irrational and are not self-aware or did not have cognitive capabilities as human beings. As such, he established that human beings are different from animals because human beings can experience mental pleasures and interestingly prefer mental pleasure to body pleasures (“John Start Mill” 1). He supports this by asserting that individuals who enjoy all pleasures qualify as the only judges who equally crave for mental pleasures. Indeed, it is factual that all animals tend to resent or retaliate, any damage destined for us or to those with whom we sympathize (Mill 1). In fact, every animal and human beings seeks to defend themselves by attacking those who hurt us or are planning to hurt us or our close associates. One of the fundamental differences between humans and non-human animals is the difference in the ability to sympathize with others. Ideally, animals can only sympathize with their young ones or with superior animals that assist them in a given way (Mill 1). However, human beings have the capacity to sympathize with all human beings and all sensible beings. This amounts to a moral difference, which derives moral significance in that it limits the moral actions of non-human animals. As such, non-human animals do not enjoy the Greatest Happiness Principle to the fullest. On the other hand, human beings have no limits to their moral actions and can thus enjoy the Greatest Happiness Principle to the maximum. According to Kant the morally important difference between human beings and non-human animals is the fact that only humans have the capacity to resist desires and choose a course of action, assess and judge the moral principles that govern our beliefs and actions as well as regulating those beliefs and actions (Korsgaard 11-12). He further notes that the morally important difference resides in the fact that unlike the non-human animals, humans’ conduct is subject to moral guidance and moral evaluation since animals have no capacity to regulate their conduct in relation to an assessment of their principles (Korsgaard 11-12). However, he asserts that humans only have a duty to the moral status of the non-humans but not an obligation (Korsgaard 11-12). As we can see, Kant's view of the moral difference between human beings and animals is different from Mill's view. Indeed, Kant asserts that non-humans do not have the capacity to resist desires and choose a course of action a point that Mill seems to negate by claiming that animals can actually decide to sympathize with other animals. Indeed, Kant asserts that animals have no capacity to regulate their conduct but Mill suggests otherwise. More so, while Kant claims that humans only have a duty regarding the moral status of non-humans, Mill derives an obligation to all human beings and all sensible beings including noble animals. Works Cited Booher, Troy. J.S. Mill's Test for Higher Pleasure. Web. 4 October 2013. < http://www.historyofethics.org/122007/122007Booher.shtml> Mill, John Stuart. On the Connection between Justice and Utility. Web. 4 October 2013. < http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mill-john-stuart/1863/utility/ch05.htm> “John Stuart Mill.” Mill, Kant, Plato, and Aristotle. Web. 4 October 2013. < http://home.southernct.edu/~gillilandr1/phil200/Mill&Kant.htm> LaFave, Sandra. Utilitarianism. Web. 4 October 2013. < http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/util.htm> Lee, Eugene. An Introduction to Utilitarianism. Web. 4 October 2013. < http://www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/utilitarianism.html> Johnson, Robert. Kant's Moral Philosophy. 2008. Web. 4 October 2013. < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/> Read More