The theories put frontward. by Kant and Mill cover with the moral qualities of picks or actions. Although they are really different. none of the two theories shows concern in the virtuousness moralss on what truly constitutes a good homo being. However. Kant’s theory is much deontological. This means that it locates the moral worth associated with an action within the action itself. Therefore. the chief concern is non in the effects associated with the specific action. On a more specific note. Kant’s point of position is that it is possible to hold one responsibility or regulation. which can be categorized/ characterized as being the categorical jussive mood. He arrived at three different preparations refering to this imperative ( Kant & A ; Gregory. 1998 ) .
The most cardinal preparation is that if it is impossible for all human existences to perpetrate the same set or sets of actions. so concerned action is immoral. This means that if one is a prevaricator. he is incapable of willing that every individual prevarication because in this instance the significance of truth may stop up going inexplicable. As a consequence. any advantage. which obtained by usage of prevarications. can stop up acquiring lost. The 2nd jussive mood is a different manner of underscoring the aureate regulation. It states that if one is unable to will ( want ) that a different individual commit the same action on one’s individual. so the existent committing of the action or make up one’s minding mentally to make the same is an immoral enterprise.
On the other manus. we can take Mill as being more of a consequentialist. Harmonizing to Mill. the results determine the goodness of any action ( Kant & A ; Gregory. 1998 ) . Kant is of the sentiment that the good action is one. which is in line with our responsibility. This becomes known depending on the fact. which it apportions with the categorical imperative Mill’s beliefs make him a useful. In his theory. goodness is located harmonizing to the felicity which it gives rise to. It is deserving observing. nevertheless. that both philosophers are really passionately interested in personal autonomy for all the concerned persons.
Mill’s utilitarianism does non affect neither with the agencies nor with purposes. It is wholly with the consequences. Mill’s sentiment was that all events’ results could be measured by usage of units. which he referred to as “utils. ” The units can be used to find the existent to which an action was useful. Mill argued that the higher the figure of “utils” associated with an action portrayed how good an action was. Critics have pointed out that utilitarianism is non concerned about coming with regulations to put up some signifier of a “straw adult male. ” On the portion of Mill ( 1998 ) . he argues that utilitarianism is some signifier of a rough imitation act. This is the version. which the philosophers appear to be acquainted with. Further. Daniel Dennett has argued that it is non possible to make the computations. as required by the utilitarianism theory merely because the incidents do non sum up as a precise value in footings of public-service corporation.
Mill’s utilitarianism does non affect neither with the agencies nor with purposes. It is wholly with the consequences. He wishes to sideline himself from Kant by showing that actions can take to an result. but taking no credibleness of the actions. On the other manus. Kant takes duty of the action. Finally. the two theories show similar concern in the virtuousness moralss on what truly constitutes a good homo being.
Kant. I. . & A ; Gregory. M. J. ( 1998 ) . Basis of the metaphysics of ethical motives. Cambridge. U. K. :
Cambridge University Press.
Mill. J. S. . & A ; Crisp. R. ( 1998 ) . Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.