Which concept is better for human morality, Mill's Utilitarianism or Kant's Deontological theory?

Question

Which perspective has a better foundation for determining a duty, moral obligation, etc...?

Answer 1

Kant wins between the two. (While some respondents chose neither, the question you asked had to do with Kant and Mill specifically. So I am answering your question.)

One difficulty with Mill's utilitarianism is that it seems to enslave us to the greater good. Indeed, some deontologists (like W. D. Ross) suggest that this is one of the greatest difficulties--there is almost always something that I could be doing (besides answering Yahoo! Answers questions) that would bring about a greater good for a greater number. Under Mill's plan, it is not at all clear that the individual has a "personal arena" in which to make personal choices.

Second, the whole idea of basing morality on consequences seems misguided. When we describe someone as moral, we are not simply saying that they do things that have good results. That sounds more like the definition of a philanthropist. To describe someone as moral gives some sort of analysis of their character and motivation.

Third, basing morality on consequences seems doomed to failure. After all, if "moral" means bringing about the greatest good for the greatest number, then I cannot know whether my action was moral until after I have acted and have an opportunity to assess the results. But I thought the purpose of a moral theory was to help me know the right action BEFORE acting. Because of this, Mill (et al) suggest that utilitarianism calls for us to perform the act which will--or which probably will--or which is expected to--bring about the greatest good. But the fact that they had to include all of this wording seems to suggest that they knew this was a fatal flaw in the theory.

Kant's theory, while much more complex and difficult for most people to grasp, is founded upon the rationality that all rational beings share. It seeks logical consistency as its guide. The value (which another respondent suggested was missing) can be summed up as "being true to our nature." Since we are rational creatures, we should desire to act rationally. Moral action is rational action--it is logically consistent and mandated by reason. And, as it is a priori, it helps me to know right and wrong before acting, so it does provide a solid foundation upon which to base moral decision making.

Kant wins, hands down.

Answer 2

To answet this question you'd have to do it on a base of some kind of theory. From Kant's point of view etc. Now, they are both wrong, because they can not (or have not tried) explain what the values are, how they exist, how we can realize or incorporate them into the world. To have a valid moral theory of action we need to know what is the moral value (the good).

Answer 3

these guys are like 200 years old. get current folks. start with Nietszche and Kierkegaard and work your way to the 21st C with Heidegger (there's where its at) and Foucault/Derrida/Irigaray. These 17C thinkers (and their american following like Rand) are based on a foundation of logic that has been deconstructed and left for dead.

If you want a morality/ethic that is grounded in who we are so that it works, you have to first get to the bottom of who we are. We can't do that until the existential ontology has been worked out in a phenomenological proof that goes beyond the trappings of "enlightenment" hegelian and kantial thinkings.

Answer 4

The eschatological is total Bullshit.
Why even pretend like either side is "right"?

The "end" is a total fantasy.
Whether it's the "ends justify the means"
or the human is the "end-in-itself".

Both fücking wrong.
foundations are idiotic, platonic, stupid ways of describing the
Shoulds and Is

Answer 5

Fusionism, a Fusionists finds an aggreable middle ground that works.
As a Fusionist, I say that both have merits and faults, now lets agree on which is what and progress.

Answer 6

I second mezizany's post, but that said, I don't think one can really understand Derrida (to name one of the several theorists cited above) without first understanding and reading the texts he deconstructs.

Answer 7

I would say Kant even though I am not sure if anyone understands him completely.

Answer 8

I am a fan of Kant.

Answer 9

between the two Mill, but Rand is right.