Mill, Kant and The Ethical Divid - Utilitarianism and Deontology

Utilitarianism is a form of theory that focuses more on consequences of action. In this text, the author argues that the creep that concurs as the foundation of utility, morals or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that actions are right according to proportion as they promote happiness (Mill, 67). Actions also are perceived to be wrong as they try to produce the opposite of happiness. The Greatest Happiness Principle supports happiness as intended pleasure with no pain while unhappiness is pain together with privation of pleasure. The theory of Utilitarianism needs to include the idea of pleasure and pain to provide a clear view of moral standard set up. These explanations do not impact the theory of life in which utilitarianism theory of morality is based.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The principle describes the comparison between Epicurean life and that of a beast that are felt as degrading since the pleasure of beast do not satisfy the conception of happiness for human beings. This author, Mill, argues that human beings have faculties much higher compared to animals hence when understood they do not regard anything as happiness unless it involves gratification. It is true according to the principle of utility and great happiness to recognize some facts about varieties of pleasure are more valuable and desirable compared to others (Mill, 67-83). The approximation of comfort should be considered to depend only on quantity.

The individuals who object utilitarianism cannot all times be charged with representing it in a bad light. However, among the objectors to utilitarianism sometimes realizes culpability with its standard as being unbearable for humanity. The opponents say that utilitarianism exacts too much that individuals always have to act from inducement of promoting the interest of the society. Mill in his text explains that it is the responsibility of ethics to teach individuals about their duties and the kind of test they can go through to understand them (Mill, 89). No system of values that needs the sole motivation for what individuals do is the feeling of duty. Different from that much of persons actions are done from different motives. The actions are if at all their laws and regulation of duty does not condemn them.

Deontology is an approach to ethics that concentrates on the wrongfulness or rightfulness of actions themselves rather than on the wrongness or rightness of the consequences of those actions or to the habits and character of the actor. A right or wrong situation depends on an action that brought it forth (Kant,73). A choice is right if it conforms to the moral norm with right taking priority over good. Deontology may be consistent with moral absolutism sometimes but not necessarily. Immanuel Kant, for instance, postulates that it is not right to tell lies even in a circumstance where a murderer is asking for potential victim's whereabouts. It is sometimes referred to as obligation based or duty-based ethics because deontologists believe that ethical rules bind people to their duty.

Immanuel Kant introduced modern deontological studies in the late 18th Century with his theory of Categorical Imperative (Kant, 73-87). He defined imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative would compel action in a given phantasmagoria. Kant argued that the highest good must be both intrinsically good (enough in itself) and right without qualification. He culminated that there existed only one issue that are possibly right: Absolute good is determined by a sensation of moral duty. In this concept, Kant acknowledged what he termed as a categorical imperative. Additionally, it is a principal intrinsically valid for our behaviors to flow in a moral way. To him, the unconditional duty and responsibility regardless of desires and will, and regardless of any action that may occur. His belief pointed that if an action is not focused on the interest of duty, then it is not in light of moral value and thus meaningless.

According to Kant nothing can be possibly achieved in the world or out of it which can be rendered good with no qualifications except good will (Kant, 103). Wit, Intelligence, judgment, and other talents of the mind or courage, perseverance, resolution as qualities of temperament are good and desirable are gifts of nature which may become bad and mischievous if the will is not good. There are some conditions of service to this good will and may facilitate its action yet have no intrinsic unconditional value but presuppose. A good will always qualifies the esteem and does not allow to be regarded good in entirety. A good will is good simply by the volition.

Kant developed his moral philosophy and formulated it in three different ways. This entails, acting only in such a way that one would want the actions to be recognized the law that is applied to all.

It is everyones duty to maintain life, and everyone has a personal inclination to do so. However on this account, the anxious care taken by most men has no intrinsic worth and their maxim has no moral import. They thus preserve life as duty requires but not because duty requires.

The theory of utilitarianism deals with the consequences of action unlike in the theory of deontology which focuses on privileges motives. The theories have the common aspects of life to human being like the causes of pleasure and happiness in utilitarianism while in deontology explains the core factors of duty and motivation. Deontology theory encourages the good will to individuals despite the achievements made in life like an acquisition of wealth. Contrary to that, utilitarianism perceives the need for better lives in that it involves the greatest principle of happiness which focus on pleasure and happiness.

Work cited

Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals

(1785), New York. Print

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism.What Utilitarianism Is (1863), London. Inc.