Mill’s Objection To Kant’s Moral Theory

1373 words - 5 pages

John Stuart Mill famously criticized Immanuel Kant and his theory of the Categorical Imperative by arguing that,
“[Kant] fails… to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.”
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.

Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure to conform to the CI is irrational. The CI tests maxims, which are a general rule of action. As an example, an individual may be tempted to lie. This may be formulated into a maxim in many ways, but I will discuss only two formulations. This maxim may be “I will lie when I want to deceive someone”, or it may also be “I will lie in order to deceive someone.” More generally, a maxim may account for the circumstances in which an action will be performed (I will perform act A in circumstances C), or account for the purpose at which it aims (I will do act A in order to P). For many cases either articulation will result in the same verdict via the CI, and exceptions will be addressed later.

Kant uses the CI with the examples of promise keeping and beneficence to show that both are rationally necessary. In the case of promise keeping, we may formulate the maxim in one of two ways: 1) I will make a false promise when I am in a difficult situation, or 2) I will make a false promise in order to get out of a difficult situation. Using the CI as a test for acceptable action, we attempt to envision willing the universalization of this maxim. In doing so, we discover a contradiction and our maxim is rejected. The nature of this...

Find Another Essay On Mill’s Objection to Kant’s Moral Theory

Utilitarianism, by John Stuart Mill Essay

1368 words - 5 pages Explain why Mill distinguishes between higher and lower pleasures and assess whether he achieves his aim or not. In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers

Kant: Moral Theories Essay

1276 words - 5 pages Kant's moral theory According to Timmons, the field of philosophy is not complete without the mention of Kant whose contributions were major (205). This, he adds, was influenced by his originality, subtle approach and the difficulty of his works. Timmons cites that moral requirements are a requirement of reason, which is the ideology of Kant’s Moral theory; hence, immoral act is an act against reason. Consequently, speaking on the terminologies

Compare Mill and Kant’s Ethics

917 words - 4 pages Kant’s Ethics may best apply to modern business. Kant said right action based on a set of moral rules, and the right action is supposed to be the one that conforms with these rules, whereas certain other types of action are morally forbidden. He also suggests that people should be treated "with respect and as ends in their own right, not solely as means to other's ends." On the contrary, Mill’s ethics only concern about the happiness of majority

Higher and Lower Pleasures: Their Effects on Millian Utilitarianism

1443 words - 6 pages Mill’s Distinction Utilitarianism is a moral theory that is rooted in the belief that happiness, which is understood as pleasure and the privation of pain, is the only thing that is intrinsically good. Mill’s endorsement of this “greatest happiness principle” is as follows: 1.1: “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals "utility" or the" greatest happiness principle" holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote

Utilitarianism, by John Stuart Mill

2492 words - 10 pages In John Stuart Mill’s work Utilitarianism, Mill is trying to provide proof for his moral theory utilitarianism and disprove all the objections against it. Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (Ch. II, page 7). He calls this the “greatest happiness principle. Mill says, “No reason can be given

Ethics: The Human Imperfection of Greed

993 words - 4 pages Kantian Ethics have been criticized in hypothetical situations based on the literal meaning of his words as to what a moral act constitutes. The goodwill is the only thing in the world that is good unconditionally and in itself, no matter what accomplishes, or what other attributes accompany it. (Abbott, Dennis, P.18) This is the particular theory that I feel should be applied in the formulation of laws. It should be asked in court according

Tom and Mary

1726 words - 7 pages the other patients in need. In this essay, I will explain how the case of Dr. Tom and his patient, Mary, can be examined morally using John Stuart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism and the Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP) and Immanuel Kant’s Deontology and his Formula of Universal Law (FUL). I will also explain why Kantian Deontology works better as a moral theory in the case of Tom and Mary. In John Stuart Mill’s, “Utilitarianism,” Mill

Mill's Utilitarianism

1145 words - 5 pages Mill’s Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory, meaning the morality of our actions is judged according to the consequences they bring about. According to utilitarianisms, all our actions should promote happiness. For Mill, happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain. In this paper, I will discuss the objection to Utilitarianism that is only fit for a swine, and Mill’s responses to that objection. Those


1755 words - 8 pages Mill’s theory of the Greatest Happiness Principle and how it measures the happiness of humans with the use of the three ingredients: consequentialism, hedonism, and impartiality and how this theory falls short to Kant’s. To begin, Mill would take the situation of Tom and Mary and say that Tom made the right choice in giving away Mary’s organs. Mill has a theory that all moral decisions should be chosen only to promote the greatest amount of

Ethics Reflection

2185 words - 9 pages . The other individual is Dr. Rutland’s secretary. Being that only one person is to survive, who should be saved?      In order to decide what the moral or ethical decision would be in this situation, one may look the utilitarian philosophy of Mill. According to Mill, The theory of morality- that pleasure, and the freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things are desirable either

on hedonism

635 words - 3 pages pig is not the point Mill is trying to make with hedonism. Mill’s response to this objection does an adequate job of debunking the idea of living life like a pig. Take for example, when a student takes the initiative to study for an exam instead of going to a party. This individual is making the best decision in this situation even though the short term pleasure of going to a party is being sacrificed for something more valuable, like

Similar Essays

An Exposition Of Kant’s, Arendt’s, And Mill’s Moral Philosophy

2792 words - 11 pages An Exposition of Kant’s, Arendt’s, and Mill’s Moral Philosophy Immanuel Kant adheres to Deontological ethics. His theory offers a view of morality based on the principle of good will and duty. According to him, people can perform good actions solely by good intentions without any considerations to consequences. In addition, one must follow the laws and the categorical imperative in order to act in accordance with and from duty. Several other

Outline And Evaluate What You Consider To Be The Most Powerful Objection To Utilitarianism As A Moral Theory

1074 words - 4 pages concerned with the total quantity of all happiness. So, I conclude that the principle which governs utilitarianism - happiness at any expense - is not a moral principle. Therefore, the most powerful objection is that it can never itself be a moral theory, only a theory that provides an alternative to our own morality.

Objections To Rossian Pluralism Make It A More Valuable Moral Theory

1413 words - 6 pages trade-offs. However, I will demonstrate that the problem of trade-offs is an issue that can be neglected as a valid objection to Rossian Pluralism because it is applicable to other theories as well and it is a factor that makes a moral theory more valuable than not. The prima facie duties that William David Ross has listed include duties of fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, and non-maleficence. Duties of

What Is Virtue Theory? "Virtue Ethics Is Of Little Practical Use To Someone Faced With A Moral Problem." Discuss.

1103 words - 4 pages faced with a moral problem, although virtue theory harbours several critical problems, which make it contradictive and difficult to use.There is disagreement between philosophers and religions. Aristotle thought pride was a virtue, but Christian virtue theorists think it is a vice. Hume disliked chastity, but Christians view it as a virtue. If one were faced with the situation of choosing abstinence how would one know which philosopher to follow