kant vs mill word

5
Kant versus Mill 1. Kant’s concerned with motive, ie maxim. Maxim is the subjective principle of volition. Will is a faculty of reason, so when reason determines itself the will determines itself and is thus acting freely., not conditioned by consequences. The categorical imperative is the formulation of the moral law, which the will imposes on itself and obeys. For Kant a truly moral act is determined by reason alone, when there is no inclination motivating the will. When the maxim has as its principle the categorical imperative it is acting for the sake of duty. Mill is concerned with consequences. Principle of morality is the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest amount of people. Actions judged good whether or not they promote the greatest amount of happiness. 2. Kant’s morality is based on reason alone. Kant says that the moral law is a priori precedes experience, it is not discovered in experience. Moral law is what makes morality possible. The will being determined by inclinations or desires is heteronomous, ie not free because conditioned by something else Hypothetical Problematic imperative- learning italian, doing things insofar as I want to learn italian Hypothetical Assertoric imperative - happiness, actions that are necessary for an end, but necessity as is valid only under a set of subjectively contingent situation

Upload: delaprimavera1

Post on 25-Nov-2015

13 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

k v m

TRANSCRIPT

Kant versus Mill

1. Kants concerned with motive, ie maxim. Maxim is the subjective principle of volition. Will is a faculty of reason, so when reason determines itself the will determines itself and is thus acting freely., not conditioned by consequences. The categorical imperative is the formulation of the moral law, which the will imposes on itself and obeys.For Kant a truly moral act is determined by reason alone, when there is no inclination motivating the will. When the maxim has as its principle the categorical imperative it is acting for the sake of duty.

Mill is concerned with consequences. Principle of morality is the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest amount of people. Actions judged good whether or not they promote the greatest amount of happiness.

2. Kants morality is based on reason alone. Kant says that the moral law is a priori precedes experience, it is not discovered in experience. Moral law is what makes morality possible.

The will being determined by inclinations or desires is heteronomous, ie not free because conditioned by something elseHypothetical Problematic imperative- learning italian, doing things insofar as I want to learn italianHypothetical Assertoric imperative - happiness, actions that are necessary for an end, but necessity as is valid only under a set of subjectively contingent situation

Mills theory is based on desire. Social feeling is what determines our actions. we all desire social unity. When our actions tend away from social disunity we either feel bad (internal sanctions, ie conscience), or if not we are ostracized (external sanctions, laws and social pressures). The only reason we obey trancendent object laws is because we feel obligated to do so, to promote social unity.

3. Good things for Kant are based on the good will - good will is the condition for every other good thing.

Categorical Imperative- an objective principle, moral

Dignity

Performative contradictions

Rational beings are called persons inasmuch as they are ends in themselves, as something which is not to be used merely as a means; beings which are objects of respectPersons are objective ends, ie exist as ends in themselves; as opposed to subjective ends beings whose existence as an effect of our actions has value for us

Kingdom of Ends-all rational beings stand under the law that each of them should treat himself and all others never merely as means but as ends in himself. Herby arises the systematic union of rational beings through common objective laws ie a Kingdom of Ends

Mills individuality is that of a part of a whole.

Mill is the end of my actions is something outside my will, ie pleasure, and not my pleasure but the pleasure of the greatest number

Kant seeking universal, objective, necessary, a priori moral laws. Experience does not give you universal, necessary, objective but each experience is uniquegood will is good intself not because of its effects, possible because will is a feature of reason, practical reason. Good will is good when it acts for the sake of duty. categorical imperative is the command to do this. respect for the law is the source of the motive. Moral woth of an action is not from consequence but from maxim (subjective principle of volition) when maxim is determined by formal, a priori principle moral because acts for the sake of the moral lawdetermination of the will - objectively - the law, ie that the will is reason subjectively- pure respect for the law, ie the maxim as opposed to purely subjective desiresI should never act except in such a way that I will my maxim to become a universal law

1. Mill says to Kant- Kant has given us universal principles but morality is played out in experience, what to do in this situation. Mill wants concrete happiness. He wants to derive morality from experience. Kant would say how do you escape subjectivity, contingency - you cant in experience must go to reason.2. Mill says good action is based on the results, no matter the motives or inclinations. Kant says that the consequences dont matter only the motives. if maxim determined by categorical imperative, ie by reason, and is thus acting freely, ie not determined by something else but by itself, in so far as man is a rational being and will belongs to rational beings insofar as will is practical reason, and so will determines itself. freedom comes not only from obeying moral laws (I ought to do this) but legislating moral laws.3. Mill says to Kant that he is concerned with consequences in that they dont disobey the moral law to not undergo a contradiction, but Mill says there would be no contradiction logical or physical in acting contrary to the moral law at all, and that there are more fundamental consequences than these, ie pleasure and pain. Kant says the contradiction would be performative contradiction, Kant is trying to preserve moral meaning, if you willed the contrary to telling the truth yor very words would become meaningless4. For Kant the object of the will is the will itself. Mill it is the greates happiness for the greatest amount of people5. Kant says the sole motivation for actions should be duty. But mill says never the case you act for duty. And Mill says its the consequences.6. Mill gets objectivity by asking compentent judges about the quality of two competing pleasures. Kant has objectivity in the structures of reason and the law.7. Mill says person is a part of the whole. That the person should contribute to the social whole. Kant would say that you are making yourself a means to an end, and also in sacrificing others you are making them a mean to an end, which goes against the definition of a person and violates the kingdom of ends.Mill would say the ends justify the means. think of a sinking submarine. Mill says deep down the motivation is for acting is a subjective feeling. That you do good actions to not cause others pain or yourself. You desire social unity, but in acting badly you cause disunity, or you feel guilty, or if not ostracized; neverthelesss against Kant, he says the motivation is always a feeling. Kant will not allow for any subjective influence, and only respect is the source of motivating the will to act for the sake of the moral law.

Against Mill:Using the elderly and childerent as mere tools are dispose of them is treating them as means to an end that is not theirs.

Against Kant:Allows for no exceptions, and does not look to the consequences, ie Nazis looking for Jews in your house