Mill and Kant- Morality Immanuel

Mill and Kant- MORALITY Immanuel Kant and John Start Mill give us two distinct theories of morality. It is important to discuss both and see if morality actually refers to the act that produces happiness for greatest number of people. We shall be discussing Kant's theory of morality which revolves around the idea of 'ought'. Kant maintained that morality must be grounded in the sense of duty.

In other words, when a person commits an act of morality, it should emerge from his sense of duty instead of an expectation of reward. In other words, it ought to be done unconditionally and applies to everyone equally. Dr. Ed L. Miller of the University of Colorado explains Kant's views on morality in these words: For Kant, only the unconditional ought is the moral ought.

Why? Because, as we all recognize -- don't we? -- morality must be necessary and universal, that is, it must be absolutely binding, and absolutely binding on everyone alike: Whoever you are, whatever your situation, you ought to do X. (Miller, 454) Merit and rewards are thus not to be considered when a moral act is committed. The moral law has to be binding and universal. This means a) it ought to be done and b) it must be done by all without any regard for person's circumstances or position.

Kant believes that a moral law would be wrong if it applied to person P. And not to person Z. Kant thus states: I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become universal law.

Here, now, it is the simple conformity to law in general, without assuming any particular law applicable to certain actions, that serves the will as its principle, and must so serve it, if duty is not to be a vain delusion and a chimeric vision.(Kant: p.29) Kant also refuses to accept that people can seek rewards for committing an act of morality.

In other words, he feels that an act wouldn't be moral if it was performed with the desire for rewards: T]he moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it, nor in any principle of action which requires to borrow its motive from this expected effect. (Kant: p.28) Kant also maintains that morality must be separated from all practical or empirical concerns.

In other words, he feels that morality must be a priori so that every person is ought to take that action regardless of his experiences or any other excuses. The questions of whether it can be done, is it human nature to do it, etc. should not be taken into account. Similarly the circumstances under which the act is being performed must not be a consideration too.

Everyone must admit that a law, if it is to hold morally, i.e., as a ground of obligation, must imply absolute necessity; he must admit that the command, "Thou shalt not lie," does not apply to men only, as if other rational beings had no need to observe it. The same is true for all other moral laws properly so called. (Kant 2: p27) Another important facet of Kant's theory of morality is the will. Kant felt that any moral action would need to be based on a good will.

He added that no matter how good an action appears, it cannot be termed moral unless it is based on simply good will.

Good will to him was thus the only concept which needed no qualifications: Nothing in the world -- indeed nothing even beyond the world -- can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.(Kant 2: p.9) The reason why Kant felt good will was important because he asserted that other positive attributes can turn harmful if the will is not as positive or good as the attribute itself.

Courage, intelligence for example could be used for wrong purposes and hence it was important pre-requisite to have good will if an action was to be termed moral. Intelligence, wit, judgment, and the other talents of the mind, however they be named, or courage, resoluteness, and perseverance as qualities of temperament, are doubtless in many respects good and desirable.

But they can become extremely bad and harmful if the will, which is to make use of these gifts of nature and which in its special constitution is called character, is not good. (Kant 2: p 9) John Stuart Mill on the other hand proposed a different theory of morality which stated that an action is right if it promotes happiness of the greatest number of people. In other words, if an action maximizes general happiness then it can be deemed moral.

Mill felt that maximization of general happiness was the pre-requisite because "each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness" (Mill qtd. In McCloskey, 61). This was his utilitarian belief and was based on the notion that man's desires his own pleasure. Thus by maximizing the general happiness, he would also be maximizing his own pleasure and since it is not only him benefiting from the action, we can term it moral.

Since pleasure, to Mill, was the only goal that man strived to attain with his actions thus morality, "the rules and precepts for human conduct" (Kolak, 834), was also based on this notion. Mill completely rejected Kantian belief that morality occurs when good will is the driving force behind an action. He felt that a moral action should be based on possibility of good consequences and not on good intentions alone.

While there are some flaws in both theories, it is Kant's moral law which makes far more sense than Mill's utilitarian idea of morality. For one, man doesn't always act with the goal of maximizing other people's happiness because one some occasions, their happiness might not result in his own pleasure. Suppose a person X loves his job and deserves to be promoted because he is dedicated and hard working, but person Z, Y, T- all his colleagues, do not like him and would.