Date Moral Philosophy

Date Moral Philosophy
A person’s character or action is right or wrong based on the evaluation by moral assertion. Moral philosophy is concerned with ethics and motivation that guide human beings when making decisions. In other words, moral philosophy consists of theories that explain how human beings should live their lives. From a moral point of view, actions of a person can be well-thought-out as good or bad, and also they can be considered right or wrong. Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two philosophers who are known for their contribution to modern morality and ethics. Both philosophers have different ideas concerning what makes an action or character ethical. Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill differ on the moral system but they both agree on the approaches to morality. Therefore, Kant and Mill ideas concerning happiness, duty, and morality are significant to scrutinize as both of them are important philosophers.
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill suggest different beliefs on how to judge moral value of an action, the rapport between the moral and natural good and their duty. According to Immanuel Kant, provided an action is reasoned, it is definitely moral. What drives an action concludes its moral worthiness. He defines it as the moral good or moral law expressed in categorical imperative which comprises of acting on maxims. Morality should be universal because, for all people, the cause is the same at all times. To be moral, maxim should be applicable to all people.

If Maxim is not applicable to everyone, then it cannot be morally rational. A person who believes that the moral decisions he or she makes are an exemption, such a person makes the decision on what he or she finds best but not on moral reason. Therefore Kant argues that people make decisions and act in a selected manner because the motive of the act is commendable. This contradicts the hypothetical imperative which assumes that people only act on something so as to get something else. However, John Stuart Mill argues that any action that adds happiness to a person or other people is right. Using Utilitarianism theory, he emphasizes that happiness is a pleasure. According to Mill, any action that denies happiness and brings pain to the human beings is wrong. Therefore, the basis of molarity is happiness. A motive in any action first affects the person acting and therefore the consequences have no much impact and hence molarity. Mill believes that a person will take action that will make others happy and if society embraces utilitarianism, people will find it morally binding. Mill further explains that rights and justice rely on utility and therefore they exist only to give people happiness.
On happiness, Immanuel Kant argues that morality cannot be based on happiness. This is because when people are performing their duties, they can find happiness. He gives diverse types of happiness and the kind of happiness that a person derives from performing his or her duty. Immanuel Kant does not believe Mill’s utilitarian theory. He believes that happiness is naturally good and thus no one can reason on how to be happy. He argues that if a person can know how to find happiness, such a person will do so repeatedly to remain happy always. Also, Immanuel Kant believes that unhappiness can be based on rational soul. Therefore Kant believes that the moral good is good will and the natural good is happiness. However, Kant and Mill agree that if a person finds somebody who is about to drown in water, and the person doesn’t know how to swim, he should not jump to the water in an attempt to save the other person as consequently both will perish causing more suffering. However the two philosophers differ in a situation where the person who wants to save the other is good at swimming but unfortunately for some reasons both perish. Kant argues that the intention of the person was good and hence moral. Mill on the other side argues that the person only increases suffering and therefore Immoral.
In both philosophies, Kant’s and Mill’s agree that an act like suicide is immoral. If a person decides to commit suicide, John Stuart Mill’s theory cannot fit in this scenario as such act will not bring happiness to people. Instead, many people will have their happiness replaced by sorrow. Therefore, suicide will definitely bring unhappiness and thus contradict Mill’s happiness and utility principle. Following Mill’s utility theory, an act of suicide should never happen. This is because the utility theory expects that people live by the idea of happiness. If people are living with the idea of happiness, there is no point in time that one can think of committing suicide as it doesn’t bring happiness. On the other side, Immanuel Kant argues that the duty of a person is to ensure a continuation of his or her life. Thus preserving life is a moral action. In Kant’s theory, suicide and death are an idea of duty. This implies that if people are rational, they should consider their morals. They should be able to determine if their morals are applicable to all nature aspects bearing in mind that a person is not a means but an end. Therefore, people committing suicide must have rationalized that they love themselves. Then committing suicide out of the love brings contradiction to such people’s rationalization and hence suicide is immoral. Therefore, in both Kant’s and Mil’s theories, suicide is definitely immoral.
When I compare Kant’s and Mill’s philosophies, it helps me as a philosopher to analyze the actions’ moral values. I agree with Immanuel Kant’s theory of categorical imperative as I believe that motive defines morality. On the other hand, Mill’s utilitarian theory cannot be disputed as it speaks about happiness which is important in human life. The two theories are interesting though contradicting. However, when they are analyzed, both have influence in individual’s actions.