Strategies for organizational effectiveness and implementation

Kant and Mill both present us with two theories to answer the question of morality for all people. Kant provides us with the Categorical Imperative which tells us that all persons are morally equal because we all have the ability to reason. On the other hand, Mill provides us with Utilitarianism which tells us to follow utility or in other words what provides the greatest amount of happiness. Both principles of Kant and Mill can be used against morality through a series of steps or in Mill's case the "application stage." An action is to be tested against these steps and the end result is ultimately the deciding factor of whether or not the specific action is moral or immoral.

Mill's "Principle of Utility" is referred to as the fundamental moral principle. The fundamental moral principle is based on utility or what produces the greatest amount of happiness. Similar to the categorical imperative, Mill takes his fundamental moral principle one step further and tests it against universality. It requires that we not only take into consideration what provides the decision-maker with the greatest amount of happiness, but to also examine all of the possible consequences and their possible effects on all persons and essentially what will produce the greatest amount of happiness for the majority. Mill's principle justifies morality based on what people desire as an end and claims that we are sentient beings. After defining his fundamental principle of morality, Mill describes a person's duties to others (in Kant's terms); however, unlike Kant he does not specifically refer to these intermediate rules as "duties" but instead as "subordinate principles.

The subordinate principles can still be comparable to what Kant refers to as our "duties" to others and recognizing their rationality and ability to reason. Mill's subordinate principles require that we acknowledge all human persons as sentient beings with the ability to be conscious and use our senses. As sentient beings we are present and have the power of knowing and feeling. Therefore, as Kant makes the claim that it is our duty to not commit suicide, make false promises, not develop our own abilities, and refuse to be charitable, these duties correspond to Mill's subordinate principles including the following:

1. Not to lie

2. To be beneficent

3. Not to steal and

4. Not to deprive others of liberty

Nevertheless, one obvious difference between the two fundamental principles of morality is the allowance for exceptions of these intermediate rules. Under the categorical imperative there are very minimal exceptions while under the principle of utility exceptions are allowable depending on social utility or the greatest amount of happiness for all persons considered.

Once this distinction between Mill's fundamental moral principle and the subordinate principles has been established, it is apparent that Kant's categorical imperative would also be considered a fundamental moral principle in similar regards to the principle of utility. Both principles require that we base morality on this one basic principle whether it may be the categorical imperative or the principle of utility. Furthermore, the intermediate rules known as "duties" in the case of Kant are relative to what we know as the subordinate principle of Mill. Essentially, both the categorical imperative and the principle of utility accomplish the same thing -- they both determine the morality of a particular action and recognize that it is not sufficient to merely apply the principle to ourselves, but to also consider all of the possible effects or consequences on all persons since we are rational or sentient beings. The conclusion or source of morality can, nonetheless, be derived from different sources. For Kant, the conclusion of whether or not a specific action is moral or immoral is based on the maxim meaning that it is ultimately based on the individual person's individual or subjective rule of conduct. On the other hand, the source of moral rightness is determined based on the consequences of the action itself.