Ethics

The question of "right and wrong" has fueled a debate between great philosophical minds for centuries. What designates something as "right" and something else as "wrong"? Is there a so-called ultimate moral principle that human beings should obey? Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill present different philosophies regarding this fundamental issue, which inevitably beg to ask the question of what ultimately guides a person's moral choices. Kant asserts that ethical decisions are based on a set of fundamental moral rules that determines what is morally right. Mill, on the other hand, consents that a desire for happiness compels all actions and decisions. In either case, however, one must consider both principles in the real world and test out which philosophy holds more validity in light of human nature. It becomes obvious that Mill's moral principle is more appropriate for contemporary ethical concerns in that his method adapts to the innate habits of modern society.

In discussing the issue of ethics, Immanuel Kant affirms that morality should be based solely on human rationality (Crisp 7). He explains that ethics should be grounded on a set of fundamental principles that one derives through reason. Kant believes that everyone has a moral obligation to follow certain duties, regardless of the consequences. What, then, are the duties to which humans owe their obedience? Kant asserts that one's duties are dictated by one ultimate moral principle that he refers to as the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a command given from one's rational mind to the will that demands the unconditional necessity of an action. Kant recognizes that there is only one categorical imperative and he defines it as, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". Thus, according to Kant, any morally good action is one that every rational person would accept as a universal law. An action is considered moral if it could conform to a universal rule and if it respects the rights of others as ends and moral legislators. This "principle giving moral law" denotes the difference between the world of the sensible and the world of the suprasensible, or the imagination, understanding and reason (Want 110). He contends that the categorical imperative, though very abstract, would support more general moral rules (Crisp 7), thus defining the appropriate response to an ethical dilemma. Consequently, the basic idea that underlines this whole philosophy is simply that it is unfair for exceptions to exist in morality (7).

Kant's philosophy differs greatly from those of other moralists in that it is focused on certain rules that are grounded on the abstract logic of the categorical imperative (Crisp 7). Thus, applying this theory can appear to be a challenging and ambiguous task. In order to employ the categorical imperative, one must first take the maxim, or the subjective principle of the will, and apply it to the particular situation in question by phrasing it out as a moral rule. For instance, if one were trying to decide whether it is ethical to lie, one would apply the maxim to the situation in the form of the rule "It is okay to lie when necessary." Then, one would apply the categorical imperative to this general rule. In other words, one must ask oneself whether he could wish that everyone accept the rule "lying when necessary is okay". Kant believes that any immoral action will either present an illogical contradiction or an absurd condition to which no logical person would agree. For this reason, in the case of lying, any reasonable person would decide that such a rule is immoral because no person would knowingly agree to be duped by everyone else. Thus, what determines the morality of an action for Kant is the understanding that if one cannot wish everyone to do something, then he cannot do it himself.

In opposition to Kant's categorical imperative, John Stuart Mill presents a highly different ethical philosophy. As a utilitarian, Mill recognizes the importance of utility as the standard for morality. In Utilitarianism, Mill defines the ultimate moral principle, which he calls the principle of utility or the happiness principle, as acting to maximize general happiness. In other words, according to Mill's utilitarian philosophy, morality is based on what actions would promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill claims that happiness, which he defines as "an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality", is "the ultimate end" of human life (Shaw 42). Mill understands that there are qualitative, not merely quantitative, distinctions among pleasures, which designate higher or lower levels or qualities of pleasure. In other words, certain kinds of pleasure are considered better than others simply because they denote higher qualities of pleasure, and therefore certain actions are qualitatively superior to others (43). In Mill's theory, the only thing that is desired is happiness because all other actions that are associated with pleasure are considered a part of happiness (47). Thus, happiness is the sole motivator of one's actions and therefore should determine the morality or immorality of an action. Mill believes that humans are fundamentally social creatures because it is natural for humans to feel sympathy for others. Therefore, humanity is naturally inclined to follow this utilitarian principle because it maximizes general happiness.

There are obvious differences between Kant's and Mill's moral principle. Kant asserts that one has a moral obligation to act from duty, as opposed to according to duty, so as to act for the appropriate reasons. Mill, on the other hand, stresses that one has a moral obligation to act in order to promote the greatest amount of happiness in society, regardless of duty. For Mill, duty is inconsequential unless it promotes the greatest happiness. Another distinction among their philosophies is the way in which Kant and Mill justify their theories. Kant's moral principle is a priori, or justified by reason alone. For Kant, experience is trivial because the consequences of an action are irrelevant to the responsibility of duty. Reason commands the will to act from duty, regardless of any possible consequences. Mill's principle, alternatively, is a posteriori, or justified by experience. According to Mill, one's actions are motivated by sentiments, for human nature compels people to feel sympathy for others. Furthermore, his utilitarian principle is justified by experience in that it relies on the predictions of future consequences to make moral decisions.