Kant vs. Mill. I understand that both aim to explain how we can be moral. I just don't get the DIFFERENCE

Question

between their views on motivation / incentives / inclinations as determining factors of morality. They (Kant and Mill) are similar in many aspects regarding their purposes that I can't decipher the differences. Just looking for some clarification.
Thank you.

Answer 1

Wow. If you're talking about Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, they seem very different to me. But maybe that's just me. Here's what I see:

Perhaps most importantly, they are looking for morality in completely different places. For Kant, an action is good or not based on INTENTIONS. If you shoot at someone with a gun and try to kill them, but miss and instead the bullet grazes off a piece of skin that was about to host a malignant and lethal tumor, you are still a villain and not a hero. And though that sounds like a ridiculous example, the point is that no person can completely control all the variables that are around him; Kant thought that nobody should be blamed for randomness.

Mill, on the other hand, was of a much more empirical bent. None of us can ever know what another person's intentions are, so he thought that the only practical place to look for morality is in results. To him, a well-intentioned bumbler who ruined anything he came in contact with was no better than a malicious individual who caused the exact same chaos. It's RESULTS that matter. Very utilitarian.

Another emphasis of utilitarian philosophy is another major difference between them. To a utilitarian like Mills, the natural objective that people should shoot for was their own happiness. Happiness, he argued, was something every person understands... a goal that he can see and work toward, unlike the many other things that some philosophies pursue.

Kant's categorical imperitive hardly seems to be concerned with happiness at all. To him, ethics was a universal thing - each act is good or it is not; who does it is as irrelevant and whether it is enjoyable. Instead of pleasure, the metrics for Kant are the greater good and universiality. One statement of his categorical imperative might be, "is the world a better place (greater good) if everybody did this all the time (universality)".

You can see that from these two differences alone we can very easily end up in completely different places. With Mill, we have to think around our actions... since the outcome is what's important, it is often better not to try if we might fail. With Kant, we have to think about everyone else... since universality is important, no exceptions to the moral code are generally permitted in any circumstance. Both take a fair amount of head-work!

Hope that helps!

Answer 2

This is a very interesting question, and I think that you are seeing something important in terms of what grounds the ethics of both philosophers. Mill's foundation is utilitarian, yet involves a qualification of self interest, but is this essentailly Kant's as well? If we all act in accord with the maxim that can be applied as universal-- is not this based on some measure on of self-interest on our part, a kind of protection against any claim to exceptions? I think that Kant would grant this, his ethic is meant to be practical, not akin to sanctity. Is this then analogous to Mill's vision of the moral norm as determined by that which would produce the greatest happiness? Seems so-- except Kant might quarrel with the use of the term "happiness" (maximinization of pleasure, minimization of pain) or anything that could be construed as rooting ethics in emotions or emotional dispositions. In this respect, Kant might find Mill's ethical foundation far too open to whim and subjectivity, and Kant prefers something more universal and objective. I think that this might be the distinction that you are looking for. Great question!

Answer 3

That's a good question.

For Kant, motivation and duty are the name of the game. An action with beneficial effects, if done for, say, a selfish reason, is bad, in Kant's view, because the motivation counts more than the effects. For Mill, the opposite is true; only the effect matter.

Similarly, Kant believed that you are obliged to follow certain rules out of duty, such as never lying. However, suppose a friend comes to your house and tells you that he's being stalked, even to the point that he fears for his life. If a stranger comes knocking on your door and asks for your friend, would you consider it immoral to tell the person a lie to protect the life of your friend? In Kant's formulation, a lie is a lie, and you are thus obliged to be honest with this stranger. He referred to such a requirement as a "categorical duty."

Mill, being a utlitarian and thus thinking that increasing happiness (i.e., maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain) as much as possible, would accept such measures if their effects turned out to be good. Who cares, for example, if a person starts a company to make a lot of money, if, in the process, he provides employment for dozens (or, if successful, hundreds, or even thousands) of people? But who cares about what happens to those people if pollution from the company is deemed to be more hazardous than the goodness that the employment provides? Kant would thus find Mill's moral points to be a bit subjective, as you can't quantitatively measure pleasure and pain.

Answer 4

Kant Vs Mill

Answer 5

I have never been in that position before but I think it's safe to say that I wouldn't jump out a window over it. Maybe because deep down I know that men are not naturally monogomus and that it is a reality that a man might cheat on you, even if he does love you. I personally have a feeling that for the woman who killed herself, it was more than just the fact that he cheated. I am sure that something else built up to that final straw that broke the camel's back. I've been told by guys that I am not the 'typical' type of chick and so maybe that's why I would probably agree with you and your friends and say that the woman's action was very drastic and not quite fitting to the circumstance.

Answer 6

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/ax1yi

Ok if I understand your question right, you're not so much asking about the woman who committed suicide. You're asking about the women in your office who understood why she did it. Women and men have different approaches to sex. Most of the men I know, gay or not, don't really have a problem with the idea of casual sex, all things being equal. Most women I know are pretty much horrified by the idea. Maybe this goes back to cavemen days, when women needed the big lug around for protection and food. Combine that with society's tendency to teach girls to be dependent and boys to be independent, and you have all the ingredients for the kind of tragedy you were talking about.

Answer 7

for kant, actions "of moral worth" come "from the motive of duty"

for mill, "good" actions come from any action that is for the "greatest good"

Kant's "good actions" don't have any relation to the effects of the actions... an action, if done from the right motive, is good *no matter what* the results are --- Mill's "good actions" are entirely based upon the effects

mill was a utilitarian, kant was not...

those are the main differences.

Answer 8

What is your understanding of Kant's Categorical Imperative?

If you understand this, the question should resolve itself.