If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Kant vs. MIlls. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Kant vs. MIlls paper right on time.
Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Kant vs. MIlls, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Kant vs. MIlls paper at affordable prices!
"Happiness"
In two words the concept of happiness exemplifies the "American dream". People go to any means by which to obtain the many varied materials and issues that induce pleasures in each individual, and ultimately in the end, the emotion remains the ultimate goal. John Stewart Mills, a nineteenth century philosopher, correctly supported the pursuit of happiness, and maintained the concept that above all other values, pleasure existed as the utmost objective. Mills promoted his views of natural human tendency and his arguments supporting his theory that above all else, happiness was the most important dream to be fulfilled. Although Mills believed so strongly in his idea of happiness, another philosopher, by the name of Immanuel Kant, proposes a counter argument based on the principles of metaphysics. Immanuel Kant, in " Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," defends his strong beliefs in the issue of a good will. In my paper I will discuss the different claims made by each Mills and Kant on happiness's role in moral life, and present the issue that diminishes to a clash between emotions and pleasures verses rationality and logic.
Kant's moral theory and Utilitarianism are similar in the respect that they both attempt to explain how one can go about acting ethically, however they differ in areas of measuring morality and their usage of rules. Both Kant and Mills measure morality in different ways. Kant says that an act is deemed moral for two reasons if it's done for the sake of duty and if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. If one completes an action based on their duty to perform, they do the right thing because it is what they feel they ought to do as their duty. Therefore, this act would be considered morally just. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, would only see the act as morally permissible if the consequences of that action produce maximum utility and happiness for all involved.
Mill defines utility as "happiness" and constructs a system in which ethical judgment o action is based on the action's tendency to maximize net happiness. Mill proposes that some types of happiness and pain are better or worse than others when he states, " Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure."And these judgments thus create the groundwork for deciding what action in a given situation is most moral. The major flaw to Mill's argument is that by making net happiness the first principle of morality, this exploits the few for the well being of the majority. Through Mill's system, it is a moral obligation to sacrifice the happiness of a minority if it means increasing overall happiness. For example one can actually justify such an evil as slavery under Mill's theory of utilitarianism. Mill might respond that the types of pleasure and pain involved are such that the unhappiness of slavery would outweigh the happiness produced in those relying upon it.
Write your Kant vs. MIlls research paper
Utilitarianism works best towards a selfish behavior. It forces the individual to take into account the good of the many before making a decision, thus discouraging action which benefits the individual but harms others. However, utilitarianism fails again when Mills encourages people to sacrifice the good of large portions of humanity if it benefits the majority, therefore completely disregarding the obvious oppression of race, gender, etc that Mills states are unjust. Under this system eventually the majority will produce enough unhappiness because of the numerous acts where people would feel unjust.
People don't like pain when it's happening to them, regardless of what happens, and trying to convince masses of people that hey should sacrifice themselves for the common good, when in the end they don't benefit, is a hopeless proposal. No matter what moral system you try to plant into someone, there will always lay his or her natural instincts for one's own happiness. What's interesting is that Mills recognizes this instinct, but doesn't believe that it is a threat to his theory. Immanuel Kant is likewise deeply flawed. For a system to work, it has to produce desired results with reasonable amount of consistency. If a system, such as Kants, which is based on a given quality, if most of its people lack that quality, the system will fail. Kant makes this mistake when forming his theories of the categorical imperative. Kant states that we should follow this imperative because its demanded by reason, and that a free person is only one that acts on reason and doesn't pay attention to influences that aren't rational. No human being does or cannot exist in this way. The capacity for reason does not assume a specific outcome to a decision. Also, placing intentions rather than consequences at the center of his moral theory makes for more negativity than he intended. Kant argues that a good act without a moral intent has no value, but then why would anyone want to be on the receiving end of a moral intention that's going to end up an unjust action. Another point is his assumption of absolutes. This wouldn't work because many rules that majority of humans believe in are fine until others ask questions about those and other cultures believe differently. Therefore Kant's ideas of morality can only work for example, as a guideline to war because so many other rules can be left up to interpretation.
In conclusion, Mills theory of Utilitarianism justifies the greater good of the majority over that of the individual, while Kant's theory believes that society can function by all acting on an exclusively rational basis, which I believe showed a failure in his works from the start. Each system works best in its own area, Kant's works well for war, and Utilitarianism works well for everyday small human interactions. But neither, I believe, makes any dent in the broad range of experi
Please note that this sample paper on Kant vs. MIlls is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Kant vs. MIlls, we are here to assist you.Your persuasive essayon Kant vs. MIlls will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
