John Stuart Mill and Kant's Theories and Concepts of Morality

John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant both have very different perspectives when it comes to morality. Mill argues against Kant’s assertion that moral force is driven by a specific obligation, and Kant disagrees with Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. In contrast, Mill argues that an action is deemed right or wrong based off the consequences of the action. This can be identified as “The Greatest Happiness Principle” which essentially maximizes pleasure over pain in terms of an action’s consequence. On the other hand, Immanuel Kant advocates for the utilization of practical reasoning in his theory of morality. Kant reveals that there is only one moral obligation to an action; the good will. The good will corresponds with another aspect of Kantian ethics, which is the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative was coined by Kant, and he sought to refute skepticism in morality by providing a categorical with three special formulations. These three formulations are the divine composition of Kantian ethics and are what ultimately separate Kant’s perspective of morality from John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianist perspective.

The concept of John Stuart Mill’s “utilitarianism” can be identified through the following quote: '…the motive has nothing to do with the morality of an action, though much with the worth of the agent. He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty, or the hope of being paid for his trouble' (Mill, p. 219). Fully understanding this quote, is essential in determining the differences between Kant and Mill’s perspectives on morality. This quote is defined by a single term which is “what is morally right”. Morality in terms of John Stuart Mill is based on the idea of consequentialism, which determines that an action if moral if it is optimific. Consequentialism is a type of utilitarianism, and utilitarianism is essentially describing the inherent good being pleasure. Utilitarianism is more importantly the establishment of a criteria that determines if an action is right of wrong. If an action is deemed “optimific” it has the greatest balance of benefits over drawbacks, measured by some inherent good. Consequentialism also focuses on the future and its consequences, instead of the past.

Mill establishes that all future consequences matter and that all people count equally in determining if an action is optimific. Mill goes on to exclaim that motives specifically do not matter, and that it does not matter how far in the future the consequences are according to the consequentialist theory. Mill declares, 'the motive has nothing to do with the morality of an action, though much with the worth of the agent” (Mill, 219). The above quote proves that motive does not matter in regard to utilitarianism, which is an important discrepancy between Mill and Kantian ethics. Another philosophical ideal that Mill articulated is “The Greatest Happiness Principle”. The Greatest Happiness Principle is defined in John Stuart Mill’s book, “Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society” when Mill states, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Mill, 210).

This quote showcases and defines the Greatest Happiness Principle by revealing its essential points; “that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill, 210). Mill uses The Greatest Happiness Principle to reveal the focus of utilitarianism, which is intended to maximize pleasure over pain. This can be observed on page 210 of Mill’s book “Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society” where he affirms the focus of utilitarianism. Mill announces, “To give a clear view of the moral standard setup by the theory, much more requires to be said; in particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to what extent this is left an open question. But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded- namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain” (Mill, 210).

This marvelous quote ties in “The Greatest Happiness Principle” along with the focus of utilitarianism in terms of morality and it’s consequences. However, Mill goes on to back up his claim of “The Greatest Happiness Principle” further in chapter 4 of his book ““Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society”. Chapter 4 discuses “What Sort Of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible”, where Mill backs up his advocation for “The Greatest Happiness Principle” in stating, “No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness. This, however, being a fact, we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that happiness is a good' (Mill, 234). This quote shows the ultimate desire of happiness in John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianist Theory and provides society with reasoning as to why utilitarianism is important and very different from Kant’s moral perspective.

On the other hand, Immanuel Kant’s perspective on morality is very different from Mill’s. The quote that displays the critical differences between both philosopher’s perspectives is through the following quote: “There is only one thing that is valuable, no matter what – only one thing whose presence in any situation is bound to add value to it. That one thing is the good will.” (Shafer-Landau, p. 173). The key term that must be defined in order to understand Kantian ethics is the “good will”. The “good will” is the “ability to reliably know what your duty is, and a steady commitment to doing your duty for its own sake.” (Shafer-Landau, p. 173). Kant utilizes the good will to justify moral obligation towards a certain action, and he asserts that every action has a maxim; a principle of action. Kant goes into more depth about the good will in saying, “To have a good will is, first of all, to know where your duty lies. Reason alone can tell you this. We can know what is morally required of us without the help of our feelings and emotions. When we determine whether a maxim is universalizable or think about whether a proposed action will respect the humanity in others, we don’t need to want or feel anything at all” (Shafer-Landau, p. 174). In essence, this compelling quote from Immanuel Kant means that we as individuals can reason our way towards moral knowledge.

As humans, our individual desires plan a critical role in moral reasoning, and we must be able to determine right from wrong though rational thinking with the absence of feelings and emotions. In order to do this, Kant provides his “three-step test for a maxim’s universalizability” (Shafer-Landau, p. 174). This three-step test is known as the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is broken up into three parts, which is the principle of universalizability, principle of humanity, and the principle of humanity. The principle of universalizability is the idea that, “an act is morally acceptable if, and only if, its maxim is universalizable” (Shafer-Landau, p. 157). This is the first formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative which captures society’s institution of consistency and fairness through the ability to determine universalizability. The three steps in determining universalizability are: “1. Formulate your maxim clearly—state what you intend, and why you intend to do it. 2.

Imagine a world in which everyone supports and acts on your maxim. 3. Then ask: Can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world?” (Shafer-Landau, p. 159). The next formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative is the principle of humanity. The principle of human is the principle of, “always treating a human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a mere means” (Shafer-Landau, p. 169). In order to fully understand this quote, two key terms defined by Kant are “as an end” and “as a means”. “Treating someone as an end is treating her with the respect she deserves. Treating someone as a means is dealing with her so that she helps you achieve one of your goals.” (Shafer-Landau, p. 169). Kant focuses on humanity as a whole and tells us to treat every rational being as an end in itself. The last formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative is fairly simple; the principle of autonomy. The principle of autonomy is that “laws must be given by oneself, but also universal” (Shafer-Landau, 180). Kant claims that extending the idea of autonomy into an entire community, transpires to a “kingdom of ends” which ties in with the second formulation of the categorical imperative. In essence, what truly matters is your maxim that stems from the good will, regardless if you succeed or achieve your goals.

In conclusion, Mill and Kant’s perspectives on morality are very contrastive. While both perspectives postulate varying versions of moral rule, they both recognize the need for them. Even though Mill focuses on the consequences of an action, whereas Kant focuses on the action’s principles, their philosophic discrepancy is very important in acknowledging the need for moral standards. Without the philosophical studies of Mill and Kant, society would not be as progressive as it is today.