Kant and Mill

Posted: December 10th, 2013

Kant and Mill

Immanuel Kant and john start mill have different opinion because elements of moral theories. In Kant’s views, he has more interesting thoughts like the categorical imperative is the moral law. A good will which is the only intrinsic good chooses to do its duty to act. I like Kant said “a good will is not good because of what is effects or accomplishes.”  It attracts me a lot. It is good through its willing alone. It could bring merely in order to fareur some inclination and the sum of inclination. This will is lacking in power to moral theories. The good will let a person to have a good disposition to will in a certain way. Kant mentioned “ the good will and duty” he did not think that any outcome was in the good. We will take up the concept of duty, which includes that of a good will. A good character traits as an ingenuity, intelligence, courage could let a person be evil. He use these good quality to describe “ the good will.” Kant thinks the only intrinsically good thing is a “good will.” Good will is not only shown  appearance , and if the results are good, the will is good. It is intrinsic good, which means the good is for itself, by itself and valuable in itself. Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law and the moral worth of theories. It does not depend on result and principles. The law  teach us what we can do or can not do. We have to follow the principles which can guide our actions. The duty is somewhere else and our thoughts are unreality. The maxim should be consistent with laws. Just if I talking on the phone during the movie. I have to keep voice low. I still need to consider whether it is worth or not. If I foresee the bad consequences I will make sure I will fail and lose confidence

Mill’s famous formulation of philosophy filled with religious intolerance. He appealed freedom and his opinion is like if all human being in addition, to the one have the same opinions. Only that the one person has opposite view. All human being have no reason to not allow this person to speak as same if the one who has opposite opinion has power. There is also no reason to not allow other human being to speak. Mill have a formulation called “greatest happiness principle” it helps people to do the right thing in proportion as they tend to promote happiness. He distinguished between happiness value than the later. He defines the difference between higher and lower forms of happiness with the principle that those who have experienced both tend to prefer one than the other.

Kant thought the fundamental principle of our moral duties is a categorical imperative. It commands us to exercise our wills in a particular way and not to do other thing wrong. Because we possesses rational wills without other reasons. An imperative is a statement of what we should to be done, the statement which help us to know what action is obligatory or forbidden and helps people control themselves to be a good person.

Both of Kant and Mill’s opinions are on respectable principles. They also have good personal quality.

Kant is a philosophers and astronomer. He is a founder of German classical philosophy and idealism. He is considered one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe. He has the moral obligation of philosophy. A right act is right if and only if it is done because of duty actions done because of duty are morally good in relation to their maxims for Kant. But for Mill, aright act is right of and only if it produce pleasure or avoids paid regardless of the will. Kant believe that what matters in the action is the will that was involved. Mill believed that the reasoning behind an action does not matter because in the end of the action is what has happened and why it happened Is unimportant. Mill is an empiricist theory, he believe that the outcome of the action and consequences of it is what matter. Kant is a rationalist theory. He has good intentions invalid, it seems that in reality nowadays it doesn’t matter why an action occurs, it is the outcome that matter. Mill rejects the Kantian tendency to separate morality and happiness. Happiness is morality it including both physical pleasure and intellectual pleasure. Mill espouses the importance of cultivated mind for this reason, through education human can top into the unlimited sources of intellectual stimulation that have been provided by civilization.

I do not agree with Mill, Mill thinks the happiness is because of this instrumental good. In my opinion it is because of the intrinsic good. We think we are happy or not is just because we see the perfect things. It caused we are happy inside our mind, it just like a person who is very thirsty in the desert. He needs water more than needs gold. Mill fails to prove his greatest happiness principle. I reject empiricism and I accept rationalism. Although studying and experience can reveal useful information the knowledge can come from experience.

People should accept Kant’s opinion of different between phenomenal reality and numeral reality. This is important for his moral philosophy. Our will is by our control but the outcome of our will is not. A good person is not someone who act good, a good person must be someone who will to be good