Mill vs Kant

November 17, 2008 Brittani M

If I had to chose a side I would pick Mill because in his theory it is easier for a person to be moral. In Kant’s theory the only way an action can be moral is if it is done out of good will. If s person gives to charity because they love helping other people then their action isn’t moral because it was done out of desire but if a person who hates giving to charity does it because they feel completed to then this action is moral. This doesn’t sit right with me. According to Kant a person who enjoys doing good things can never really be moral and that doesn’t seem fair. According to Mill both these people because they are rising overall happiness. It could also be said that according to Mill the person who really enjoys doing good things is more moral then the other person because the person who enjoys doing good things are increasing overall happiness more frequently.

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized

One Comment Add your own

• 1. ajacksonk  |  November 24, 2008 at 1:28 am

  You say that according to Kant a person who does sumthin good out of the desire to help people could be judges as immoral and that doesnt sit right with you. The same thing could happen in Mill’s theory. if a person gives to charity out of the goodness of their heart but the charity is corrupt and kills people that person would also be judged immoral in Mills’ eyes. So i dont understand your reasoning in choosing Mill over Kant in this example

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to comments via RSS Feed