Search for Free 150,000+ Essays

Find more results for this search now!
CLICK the BUTTON to the RIGHT!

Need a Brand New Custom Essay Now?  click here

Kant vs. Mill Deontology vs. Utilitarianism

Uploaded by houndofzeus on May 01, 2006

Moral Autonomy: A Matter of Innate Reasoning

In any functioning society, a system of morals must be present to establish what is right and wrong. Nearly everything in a community is at least loosely based on a code of morals: laws, traditions, government policies, and even simple relationships, such as business transactions. Without such a system society would crumble, since daily operations depend so heavily on shared ethics. In the U.S., a Judeo-Christian ethic largely dominates the culture, but problems still arise. While certain basic values—such as “thou shalt not kill”—can be agreed upon by most of the population, it seems that no single, cohesive moral guideline has been widely accepted, despite the existence of several. Emmanuel Kant, advocating absolutism, and John Stuart Mill, who supports utilitarianism, represent two of the most prominent theories. Both Kant and Mill provide noble visions of morality, and center their thoughts on respectable principles that focus the rest of their works.

One principle lies at the heart of both utilitarianism and absolutism. Kant places great faith in the human mind, particularly its ability to use “pure reason,” as opposed to “empirical reason.” In a straightforward way, he explains that “all philosophy insofar as it is founded on experience may be called empirical, while that which sets forth its doctrines entirely on a priori principles may be called pure (Kant, p. 1).” Any conclusions made through sense experience are termed empirical, whereas a doctrine based on a priori thoughts—using only reason—is termed pure. Empirical philosophy, for the most part, can become subjective, but pure reason is solely objective.

For Kant, an objective perspective is required for any consideration of morality. He claims that “everyone must admit that if a law is morally valid…then it must carry with it absolute necessity (Kant, p. 2).” A moral law, in the eyes of Kant, must be obligatory for all rational men. Further, “[everyone] must concede that the ground of obligation here must therefore be sought not in the nature of man nor in the circumstances of the world in which man is placed, but must be sought a priori solely in the concepts of pure reason (Kant, p. 2).” Again, the emphasis is placed on objective thought. The rationale for the absolute nature of moral law cannot be found through...

Sign In Now to Read Entire Essay

Not a Member?   Create Your FREE Account »

Comments / Reviews

read full essay >>

Already a Member?   Login Now >

This essay and THOUSANDS of
other essays are FREE at eCheat.

Uploaded by:   houndofzeus

Date:   05/01/2006

Category:   Philosophy

Length:   10 pages (2,360 words)

Views:   39028

Report this Essay Save Essay
Professionally written essays on this topic:

Kant vs. Mill Deontology vs. Utilitarianism

View more professionally written essays on this topic »