about what upload

Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
The moral philosophies of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill
We live in an increasingly complex world, where we are often faced with faced with ethical dilemmas in which decisions have to be made, revolving around our personal life and that of others socially. Rationalization of our actions, whether right or wrong, is significantly influenced by the morality which may not achieve stability and is subject to change following the multiplicity and complexity of ethical dilemmas. Therefore, the question that is borne on all of us is whether consideration should be given to an action’s consequences or to follow certain predetermined rules to guide on what action is right, and is the central theme in contemporary ethics. Utilitarianism, proposed by John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant’s theories are the ethical systems to be discussed in this paper. Both theories suggest that morality should be based on a foundational principle, which is utility (Mill) and categorical imperative (Kant). They provide for recognition of moral rules in between a decision and action, which Kant refers to as duties and Mill (subordinate principles). Utilitarianism entirely focuses on the result of an action (experience) while Kantian theory relates only to the will or reasons made for the action, irrespective of the result (MacIntyre 335).
John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism theory states that as long as an action leads to the maximization of the happiness of most people (greatest possible amount of happiness for the largest number of individuals), then it is right (Beauchamp N.

p; Driver N.p). Psychologically, according to Mill, all people would act in a manner that seeks pleasure or avoids pain, while ethically, everyone ought to act so as to look for that pleasure or avoid that pain. A utilitarian would be most likely to favor the majority, and Mill defends this by saying that everyone desires for their happiness, and no reason is required for it except that each believes they can attain it (Mill, John Stuart: Ethics N.p). Therefore, by safely assuming that people want to pursue happiness and are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it, then this can form the basis for judging all human behavior and conduct, and thus this would be the criteria for morality (Lutz 14). An ethical theory only needs to appeal to practicality and independent principles cannot be used to justify any action. Mill’s preference was to have a ‘dissatisfied human rather than a satisfied pig’ (Marques 7).
The ethical theory according to Immanuel Kant is almost entirely opposite to the utilitarian argument, as there is the existence of absolute morality truths that can be arrived at from rational thinking (Beauchamp N.p). Human rights, reason, and motive are the most important considerations, and consequences have no impact. Additionally, moral decisions are independent of our thoughts, and thus, irrespective of a person’s opinion or feeling about the universe, and there does exist an objective and clearly defined comprehensive action course in any moral affair (MacIntyre 329). The metaphysics of our actions dictates that all moral principles exist beyond the uniqueness of human nature upon which derivation of practical guidelines for all rational and ultimately human nature, just the exact manner in which logic and math could be separated in their world applications (Lutz 12; Marques 3). Therefore, as our experience does not dictate truths, the empirical universe should not be considered in the derivation of more truths as this could mar our judgment. Adhering to the categorical imperative is a requirement for appropriate conduct, as it is derived from prior truths, and thus the person can undertake their actions according to the demands of rationality.
An example of a moral dilemma would be an example where Peter is diagnosed with a life-threatening ‘terminal’ illness such as advanced blood cancer. This is after he has survived liver kidney failure for all his life and has regained control over his life after he overcame post-traumatic stress disorder following his posting as an army officer in a war-torn country. The doctor tells him that he only has a 10% survival chance if he undertakes a treatment process ahead which seems complex and complicated. If he does not take up the treatment, he only has eight weeks to live. However, because he is positive about living life fully and reflecting on his past treatment experiences, he forgoes the treatment thinking that this is a dignified option, with his full family support. Upon discussing the available treatment options and the chance to commit suicide, his doctor prescribes barbiturates and the necessary dose for her to sleep and ultimate death. He died shortly.
In reacting to this hypothetical case scenario, a Kantian view would claim moral failure arises from Peter’s inability to achieve the universalized maxim in the choice made. Kant describes in his foundation for moral metaphysics that fulfillment of duty is the determinant of a particular action’s morality. Consequences have no value, and what matters is the intention behind making the decision. Thus the circumstances cannot dictate the thinking, and therefore, must be capable of universalization without destroying the societal moral fabric. The maxim for Peter was that if he was suffering an undignified life, he ought to have ended his life. We all face various struggles in our everyday lives, and if were to adopt such a view, none of us would live. However, Kant disagrees that one can kill themselves out of self-love because love inherently promotes life. Therefore, as much as Peter may have viewed suicide as his dignified right, he did the wrong thing by refusing treatment and killing himself, and thus he broke a universal moral law.
A utilitarian perspective would also herald that it was a wrong decision Peter made, arguing that only the outcome determines the morality of an action, and the intention has no bearing whatsoever. Peter’s choice is motivated by noble intent wanting to have his dignity preserved, and no imagination of suffering the pain that comes with the treatment and him waiting away. Peter’s approach the utilitarian way shows that he was intent on maximizing his happiness and not of those around him including his family. The doctor placed introduced the idea of suicide to him; something considered being murder in contemporary society, something that may have him portrayed as a criminal.
I fully support Kant’s theory in addressing this ethical problem as opposed to the utilitarian view. This is because it clearly articulates the value of humanity, in which it must be considered as an end unto itself. There must be a rational approach to any decision so that it meets universally accepted rules of morality (MacIntyre 318). Maximizing the principle where all human beings view their existence on the same reasonable grounds with others would lend it to serve as the universal practical moral code. Kant places and values human life and their rights as the most important, and thus he gives us a better and sound ethical code, where norms that go against their values can neither be considered nor made.
Works Cited
Beauchamp, Tom. “The Principle Of Beneficence In Applied Ethics”. Plato.Stanford.Edu, 2016, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principle-beneficence/.
Driver, Julia. “The history of utilitarianism.” (2009).
Lutz, David W. “Rival Philosophical Foundations of the Good Company.” (2007): 6-23.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. “Truthfulness, lies, and moral philosophers: what can we learn from Mill and Kant?.” The tanner lectures on human values 16 (1995): 307-361.
Marques, Joan. “Universalism and Utilitarianism: An Evaluation of Two Popular Moral Theories in Business Decision Making.” The Journal of Values-Based Leadership 8.2 (2015): 3.
“Mill, John Stuart: Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia Of Philosophy”. Iep.Utm.Edu, 2016, http://www.iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/.
.