kant and mill
ompare Mill and Kant's ethical theories; which makes a better societal order? John Stuart Mill (1808-73) believed in an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. There are many formulation of this theory. One such is, "Everyone should act in such a way to bring the largest possibly balance of good over evil for everyone involved." However, good is a relative term. What is good? Utilitarians disagreed on this subject. Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as follows:According to the Greatest Happiness Principle ... The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments.Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas
Because of this inability to prove rational application of perception and thus moral principle based on that perception, we are unable to demonstrate the rational justification of any universal principle or ethic. Yet, if we can't accept that Dahmer's cognition is capable of universability, then we must dominate that person by removing them from the republic. You decide how you feel about what you think you saw. There, when diving below the surface of the water, we find an immense volume of surface to chip away at. Empirical evidence creates responses that can be repealed time and again with identical or nearly identical results. So, we attempt to describe good based on virtuous thought. "The problem here, however, is pointed out in the above discussion on Kant: perception skews the person's thought because each person perceives and event (whatever an event can be) differently. This goes against Kant's theory because in order to end domination, we must yield to and follow our cognitive thought and this cannot be done because the deviant (Dahmer, Bundy, Zodiac Killer) doesn't achieve the same level of cognition as the rest of the republic. Reaching these states is possible through what may be called "the habituation process:" teaching by example, teach/reteach, monitor through rewards and punishment. Since we would never want murder to become a universal law, then it must be not moral in all situations. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is. In modern society this seems to be an oxymoron. It is this difference in what people perceive that creates opposing viewpoints on "good" whether virtuous or not. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. "In other words, Kant argues that particular action requires conscious thought or the rule governing the action, whether that rule should be followed by everyone, and if the rule is acceptable for universal action it should be adopted -- if not, then rejected.
Common topics in this essay:
Kant AristotleKant's,
Happiness Principle,
Nicomachean Ethics,
Zodiac Killer,
Universal Law,
JL Mackie,
Future Metaphysics,
Kant Aristotle's,
Hitler Kant,
Metaphysics Morals,
universal ethics,
rational application,
categorical imperative,
universal law,
event situation,
throughout community,
level cognition,
ethical properties,
creating universal ethics,
kant makes statements,
theories societal,
critique pure reason,
virtuous virtuous,
book critique pure,
argument universal ethics,
|
Acceptance Essays
