Kant’s vs John Stuart Mill

Kant vs. Mills Evaluation of moral theory
Introduction
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills philosophical, ethical theories have varying similarities and differences. Neither of the theories is much concerned with the morality and the quality of an action or a choice made. This essay seeks to answer the question, is the choice made or action taken morally right? Both Mill and Kant have their different and conflicting views in answering this question. In spite of both philosophers expressly showing their passionate interest in the liberty of people through their particular principles, they sharply differ when it comes to dealing with specific assignments or a dilemma.
This paragraph introduces unique dilemma that seeks to justify the thesis statement above and gives each of the moral theory philosophers a golden chance of correctly dealing with the dilemma in question. As expected both scholars takes divergent views on the difficult situations as they are two different schools of thoughts and they have principles which to believe. Using an example of a woman who has been attacked by gangsters or rapists and she is holding a knife in her hand as a dilemma in our context, what is she supposed to do? Does the woman has a moral right to stab the attackers in self-defense, or it will be brought against her? According to John Stuart Mill theory of utility, “an action is permissible if and only if the consequences of that action are at least as good as those of any other available to the agent”.

Therefore according to John Stuart Mill, the woman should stab the rapists to get her freedom. This way she will be able to free herself since the only option she has to get out of this danger is through violence (consequence).
An action is permissible if and only if there is no any other action available to the agent that would have better consequences. This is as explained in John Stuart Mill utility theory. An action can have better results but still be termed as bad if they were other better options available to the agent. Interestingly an action bearing bad consequence can still be permissible if an only if they were no better available option. All these narrative summarizes John Stuart Mill utilitarian theory. Therefore according to him, the attacked woman had no other better alternative available to her than to stab the rapists. According to Mill the permissibility of an action is determined by analyzing their consequences and comparing those outcomes with what would have happened if other measures were taken. Mill further says that actions should spur happiness and that one should aim at making greatest number happy with his/her actions.
Kant’s deontological moral theory focuses on the moral value of action than the action itself. Its primary focus is the intent in action rather than the consequences. A good action can have a wrong purpose. Deontologists disregard the outcome of an action. They believe that everybody has a moral duty to do the right thing, and that morality is a matter of responsibility. Kant gives an analogy of a shopkeeper who sells goods at buying price and always gives correct change to his customers. It’s morally good, but the shopkeeper might not have good intentions; hence we cannot judge his actions without looking at his intent, using the example of the woman under attack in deontology approach woman stabbing the attackers is morally wrong since everybody has a moral duty to do right. The shortcoming of this moral theory is that the woman would be killed. The woman attacking her potential killers is morally wrong according to Kant.
Conclusion
Is the choice made or action is taken morally right? The Kant’s deontologists don’t answer this question to the fullest. There are lots of shortcomings in Kant’s theory in explaining this dilemma. As Immanuel Kant put it, ant action can be morally right or wrong, but one cannot merely use consequences but rather the intent of the doer. Every person has a duty to do what is morally right. The theory limits in a way that one may end up in a mess for failing to defend themselves as they will be doing what is morally wrong. Utilitarian theory relates well with the society as it stresses the consequence of an action. The related outcome will determine One’s action. An action is morally right if and only if the other available options would achieve the same results. The advantage of Utilitarian theory over the Kant deontologist is that the former you can protect yourself through self-defence like the case of the woman under attack.