Harley Davidson Posse Ride

KANT AND MILL

Immanuel Kant and john Stuart Mill are two important philosopers with different systems of determining the ethics of a given situation. Each of these philosophers answers the question of ' What is moral?' from totally different perspectives.

John Stuart Mill is an utilitarian. According to Mill, the ultimate goal in living is 'happiness'. All desirable things (wealth, power, health...) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as a means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.

These desirable values are instrumental values. According to Mill, our only goal is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. We do everything only to have pleasure. We want to be wealthy not because of the wealth itself but we want wealth to be happy. Wealth and other desirable things are are like instruments to happiness. Parents always want well educated, well brougt up, well behaved children. But why? Is it because they think of their children or is it because they think of themselves? I think according to the utilitarians they want good children because they think of themselves, not their children. If they have good children they will be proud of their children and so they will be happy because to be proud of something/ someone brings happiness.

According to the Greatest Happiness Principle, actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as the tend to produce unhappiness. Actions are not related with motives, they are related with consequences. Mill thinks that an action is rigth if it provides maximum happiness for maximum number of people. Then is it right to sacrifice minorities for the happiness of majority like in the story of Ursula K. Le Guin? In which a child is tortured because the happiness of the people of Omelas, the beauty of the city depend on this child's misery. Mill says that an action is right if it provides maximum happiness for majority, then torturing an innocent child would become right if the happiness of all people living in Omelas depends on this torture but Mill adds 'Harm Principle' to his Greastest Happiness Principle. Harm principle means that it is always wrong to harm others. The act of torturing an innocent child for the happiness of the city is neither right nor permissible. Right actions are those which do not cause any harm for others and which do not threaten others pleasures while bringing us happiness. But there are some actions which brings us happiness while bringing others unpleasure. A student can get a higher grade by cheating, it is good for him but it is bad for the class because if he gets a higher grade, the average of the class will be much higher

and the number of students who are below the average increases.

Mill distinguishes happiness from mere sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of certain types of higher order pleasures such as intellectual, aesthetic and social enjoyments, as well as in minimal suffering. There are two kinds of pleasures; lower pleasures( food, drink, sex) and higher pleasures( aesthetic, emotional, intellectual, spiritual) Quality is important as well as quantity but who decides which pleasures are higher? Mill is an empiricist and believes knowledge is based in our experience and for him experts who have experienced of both kinds almost all give a decided preference to the higher type. Those who experienced both lower and higher pleasures know which one is more valuable. Higher pleasures are right, lower pleasures are neither right nor wrong, they are permissible, they are for satisfaction.

According to Mill, what most people value does not mean what is valuable. Higher pleasures are more valuable then lower pleasures but they are preferred by less people who are educated. Mill thinks that by the aid of education people can learn to enjoy higher pleasures and according to him, right is same for all people. Higher pleasures are right for everyone but some people do not enjoy higher pleasures, they prefer lower ones to higher ones. Mill thinks that it is because of the absence of education. If we have a chance to teach everyone how to enjoy higher pleasures, then there will be no problem, everyone will know what is right and will act right but others have chance to know what is right too because the right is same for all people.

People who know what is right sometimes may not act right because they may not resist temptations or they may prefer short-term interests instead of longterm interests or they may be selfish, they may favor their own happiness more than others.

Kant's moral system is based on reason. Reason is the final authority for morality. On the contrary Mill's system is based upon utility. Moral rightness and wrongness are determined by non moral values. According to Kant, we must do our duty whatever the consequences, simply because it is our duty. If our only goal is happiness then all our actions would be motivated by fear of punishment or wish for rewards but these motives are not suitable for morality. We can keep our promise to a friend because afraid of losing our friend or because we want to have a good friendship. But they are all consequences of keeping our promise. According to Kant. They are not praiseworthy. The only thing that is instrinsically good ,