The Perception of What Is Good - Essay Example

The Perception of What is Good according to Kant and Mill is difficult to come up with a definition of what is good. Many theorists have provided their own meaning of what is noble. This paper aspires to tackle the view of Kant and Mill in accordance with what they consider as good. Kant deemed that “goodwill is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some proposed end: it is good only through its willing, i.e. good in itself” (Driver 80).

He defines right by reference to the good—usually, the good that the action produces (Driver 80). Kant also supposed that all the various things that individuals consider significant are merely limited or conditioned goods (Baxley 8). For instance, the gifts of nature such as talents of the mind, encompassing understanding, wit, and judgment, as well as qualities of temperament, such as courage, resolution, and perseverance are good and desirable for many purposes; however, Kant insists that their goodness is conditional for such things may be extremely evil and harmful without a good will (Baxley 8).

Mill believes that something is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number (Driver 3). Simply, Mill promoted the general good, that is, tenets and social policy should always endeavor to contribute to the good of society (MacKinnon 32). Mill believes that the morally best alternative is that which produces the greatest utility, where utility is described in terms of happiness or pleasure; moreover, Mill encourages individuals to do which produces the greatest form of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people (McKinnon 32).

Mill stressed that something good is anything that is desirable; hence, the individual can only find out what is desirable by attempting to discover what is essentially desired but with this, he aims for the higher pleasures in life (Driver 51). Neither Kant nor Mill thought that people usually self-consciously apply the criterion of right action by asking themselves the driving force of why they are doing something good (Jacobs 93). Moreover, they both acclaimed that individuals tend to act on the basis of dispositions to judge and appreciate situations in certain sorts of ways, and in that respect, they both established a role for the virtues (Jacobs 93).

Kant and Mill both wrote about the significance of virtues; still, in their views of morality, what makes for good quality is the fact that the agent acts in accordance with the basic principle (Jacobs 93). Jacobs highlighted that in both Kant’s and Mill’s Theories of what is good, the principle is the crucial perception, and virtue is explained in terms of it (93). Conversely, Ferre stressed that in nearly all respects Mill was the antithesis of Kant (50). For Kant, the good in itself was identified with the will’s respect for the right or duty; for Mill, the right was portrayed by maximizing the good in itself, or happiness (Ferre 50).

Kant also gave emphasis that happiness was a mere fact of psychology which is not morally relevant or even a potentially dangerous temptation; on the other hand, Mill highlighted that happiness, or what he termed as utility, was the only absolutely pertinent measure of what is good (Ferre 50). Finally, for Kant, the consequences of their actions influenced by their motivations could not count at all but with Mill, that is not the case, for him every consequence of a particular action matters. Both theorists proved their points well regarding what they deemed is good; it is then for the individual himself or herself to decide what will be their own perception of what should and should not be performed especially if virtues were to be taken into regard.