Mill’s Utilitarianism Compared to Kantian Ethical Theory

Kant's and Mill's moral theories of, respectively, Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. More specifically, I will examine the methods of introduction and bases of support, thus highlighting the assumptions made and the logical arguments for these assumptions. The aim of the paper is to clearly explain how the two philosophers arrive at different conclusions, Kant believing it better to be good and Mill believing it better to do

good. I shall present the paper in two sections. In Part I, I will define the terms used to support these sides and in doing so proceed to outline the key elements of each philosopher's argument. In Part II, I will further elaborate on the theories by critiquing each philosopher's argument with an in-depth example, revealing my own personal views on the subject.

Part I

Of primary importance to this topic is a definition of the terms “to be good” and “to do1, and the latter as directly synonymous with the system of “Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle”2 advocated by John Stuart Mill. Thus, Kant, who argues that the good will is the only thing which can be “taken as good without qualification”3, would argue on these grounds that it is better to good”. The former will be taken as an indication of what Immanuel Kant refers to as “good will”be good. On the other hand, Mill, who holds actions as right “in proportion as they tend to promote happiness”4, would correspondingly argue that it is better to do good. Each philosopher believes his own moral theory to be fully justified, and both philosophers offer strong support for their respective points of view.

Yet despite the compelling arguments demonstrated by both thinkers, neither theory is completely airtight. It is, as Mill admits, impossible to provide a proof in the traditionally accepted sense5 of the word for his theory; the “[q]uestions of ultimate ends”6 that Mill deals with are simply not “amenable to direct proof”7. He concedes, for this reason, the fact that he can only show something to be good by means of a common admittance of its being good without proof. We as readers are thus asked to accept an equivalence to proof, namely, the presentation of considerations “capable of determining the intellect either to give or withhold its assent to the doctrine”8 - we must judge for ourselves the validity of Mill's assumptions and of his arguments. The support Kant gives for his theory, though not stated to be explicitly as such, is no different in this respect. The foundation of his argument is based upon the key assumption that good will is the only pure and untainted good, and thus the only true basis of moral philosophy. Despite Kant's complex logical arguments and myriad of examples supporting this assertion and exposing its roots, it remains an assumption nevertheless.

Given that no specific and direct proof is amenable in either case, we must rely on our intuition, rationality, and intellect to judge each theory's legitimacy. It is therefore necessary to understand each philosopher's definition of certain key terms. In fact, through an understanding of these terms the very basis of each argument becomes properly illuminated. For Kant, the concept of duty is of fundamental importance in the establishment of good will, and therefore the morality of any particular decision. Duty can be defined as a motive for action that is entirely separate from self-interest9, and therefore possibly worthy of influencing a decision based on good will. When this duty is driven by an imperative, a principle necessitating a will, as opposed to driven by fear10, for example, then it is more likely to influence a good-will-based decision. The term “categorical imperative” must also be understood, in this context, to mean an imperative that is not based on “any further purpose to be attained by a certain line of conduct”

The terms used by Mill in his argument are not as daunting as those used by Kant, but are nevertheless fundamental important to understanding his argument. The concept of Utility may be understood as synonymous with happiness13. Happiness is defined simply and clearly as the presence of “pleasure, the absence of pain”14. Thus, Overall Utility can be understood on simple terms as the most pleasure and least pain for the largest possible number of people. Mill's attention to the different kinds of pleasure as “more [or less] desirable and more [or less] valuable than others”15 is also an important part of his theory, representing his divergence from the ideas of Bentham16. The clear fact that all of the aforementioned key terms Mill uses are related to the results of actions, or consequences, (as opposed to the causes for actions, or motives) clearly differentiates his moral theory from Kant's, such that Mill would assert that it is in fact better to do good instead of be good.