This week we had our symposium about Immanuel Kant and John
Stuart Mill. And we talked about some of the major differences in their moral
theories.
Kant was a non-consequentialist. His theory was a
deontology, or a duty based theory. He believed that the only morally good
actions were done for the sake of duty. He says that you should act in a way
that your maxim could be willed as a universal law. You should treat people as
free, rational, autonomous agents. And act in a way that any other rational moral
agent would act. Kant tells us that actions are morally good or bad because of
their maxims, not the consequences they bring about.
Mill says the exact opposite in his moral theory. His theory
is a consequentialist theory. Mill practices Utilitarianism, which is a form of
hedonism, and believes pleasure is an intrinsic good. The main goal of
utilitarianism is to maximize “utility.” It seeks to have the greatest amount
of pleasure, or least amount of pain, for the greatest amount of people.
Good summary. I agree more with Kant's point of view because we should do things because it is our duty and not because we feel sorry or want something in return.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both philosophers. I agree that we should treat people in a way that creates a universal law for everyone to treat people. However, I'm the type of person that always thinks about the consequences of my actions. I'm torn in between the two because they both offer two great distinct point of views.
ReplyDeleteThe summaries of these two philosophers are well worded and give a great brief description of their beliefs. Yes, it was quite unanimous when asked which side we would take when choosing sides to defend. Kants argument is that the duty in ones actions outweighs the consequences that come from them in determining the moral worth of ones actions. Kants offers a rational argument in which the moral good is determined on the actions we do. Mill on the other hand focuses on the consequences that stem from our actions. We discussed that his philosophy could be better interpreted by a computer instead of us people because of the accuracy and precision that comes from it.
ReplyDeleteGreat summary overall. Both of the philosophers give great detail about their beliefs. Kant believes in more that duty is more important than consequences. Mills believes in consequences more than duty. I would agree with Kant that our duty is more important in our consequences.
ReplyDeleteIt's clear that the majority of us all agree with Kant. You can't possibly base all your actions on consequences when the consequences are usually unknown. You take on a duty knowing exactly what that duty is and the reasoning behind it. I think if you do a duty for good, the consequences are irrelevant. However, if you do a duty for a bad reason, you're doing it for the consequences of the action.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amber. I think it's best to have a balance between both philosophers, or a balance between being good by will and being good by the consequences of one's actions. It's important to find a middle area.
ReplyDelete