In all the functioning of an autonomous society there must be a moral system that must be incorporated in order to establish on what is right and wrong. Almost everything in any given community is based on some given code of morals; government policies, laws, traditions and even relationships. Without these system, the society would end up crumbling since every day operations are usually based and do depend on shared ethics. There is always a moral law that is valid for all the rational beings and all the men in the virtue of their own rationality (Immanuel et al, 2005).
What is wrong and what is right is a question that has led to numerous debates for theologians and philosophers. Both Mill and Kant have offered some noble visions of morality as they have centered their thoughts on rational and respectable rules and principles that do focus on their rest of the works. It is therefore imperative to get into details on their rules on morality, how they are different and other principles they have come up with in their work. Kant has used his proof basing it on the presence of science metaphysics in his moral philosophy.
He asserts that if a law is in any case to have the moral force then it ought to carry the absolute necessity (Andrea, 1998).
Science metaphysics is usually a set of the required truths that are needed in order for morality to exist. It is usually the fulfillment of a persons’ duty to the needed truths that does make any act have the moral worth irrespective of it impact. The will does make us opt to do some specific actions. According to Kant, the will is usually the only thing that can be referred as bad or good since with any bad will, all the other aspects in a person can be equally used for all the immoral reasons.
The Essay on The Better Morality: Kant and Aristotle on Happiness
Because Kant and Aristotle hold practically equal definitions of happiness, the difference must arise from the respective relationships between happiness and each author’s framework of morality. Because Kant offers a more universally accessible route to morality, whose end is the happiness of others, the world as a whole would be both happier and more virtuous if it operated under his philosophy. ...
Kant asserts that the categorical imperative is that we do owe our obedience through duty. This is the main basis of morality since if one does attempt to the will then the immoral principle becomes universal therefore creating contradiction. For example in case one wants to have an abortion, then applying the Categorical Imperative it means that if everybody did commit an abortion, then the human race would obviously cease to basically exist which is usually impossible and contradictory. However, in some instances the categorical imperative is invalid and has got potentials to be abused.
Kant’s moral philosophy does ignore the human desires (Andrea, 1998).
It does require that the human beings be in a position to follow the duty independent of their desires otherwise no one can be moral. Mills philosophy on the other hand, has provided a road map philosophy. His rule of moral philosophy is more complete than Kant’s. The Mills basis of ethics and the utilitarianism theory is essentially the greatest happiness principle which does state that ultimate end of any human action is actually greatest happiness for most people (John, 2004).
Mill does explain that happiness is usually desirable since every person who believes happiness is attainable do desire their own happiness. According to the utilitarianism theory, happiness is usually gotten from the absence of any pain and the presence of quantity and quality pleasure. One of the divergences between the two philosophers is in their belief of the reason of morality. Kant believes that the reason is usually duty as any action that is done through any duty to the Categorical Imperative is usually moral.
The Term Paper on Aristotle, Kant and Mills on Morals, Morality and Moral Philosophy
... morals and morality based on what they have popularized. Aristotle has his Nicomachean Ethics while Kant has his Categorical Imperative. Lastly, Mill has his Utilitarianism . Kant ... the consideration of the individual of his happiness or pleasure. Unlike Kant who believes that as morality is dependent on the individual, so ...
Though Kant’s theory is good in assigning the wrong immoral actions, it has failed to differentiate on the more and the less acts therefore it does not require the affirmative actions for the morality. On the other hand, Mill’s theory has a gradation system of morality that usually shows the actions to be less or more depending on the happiness it usually generates. Under Mill’s theory one can never be moral unless there is the increase of bliss to the human beings thus uses the Hypothetical Imperative, whereas Kant’s moral philosophy one can be moral and selfish.
Mill’s theory is more basic because Kant’s theory also does lack specificity. Though most laws can be gotten from Categorical Imperative, it is not effectual for handling some peculiar cases. Mill does propose for systems of laws to be derived from the happiness principle and then morality will depend on following the laws. Mill’s philosophy can be changed over time according to circumstances unlike Kant’s (Andrea, 1998).
Mill uses the Hypothetical Imperatives which unlike Categorical Imperatives are conditional and commands that does apply in case one need to attain a certain outcome (Sandra, 2006).
Both philosophers have their logic and reasoning capability on morality. The patent issue is that in any given society, there must be laws and codes of morality to govern them. References Mill, John. (2004) Utilitarianism. USA: Kessinger publishing. Melbos, Andrea. (1998).
Kant and Mill on Morality. Retrieved 10, May, 2010< http://qirien. icecavern. net/punkus/school/kantmill. htm Kant, Immanuel. , Paton, Herbert. (2005).
The moral law: groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Canada: Routledge.
