Gayatri Sanku

Philosophy 101

January 28, 2009

Philosophy Essay No.1: Ethics

The Distinction of Good

Define goodness. Is it the probability of success? Is it the love for human kind and ones

duty? Or is it simply the accuracy of moral judgments? The philosophers of the modern era, Kant

and Mill, simultaneously answer the questions on goodness as well as place their readers on the

path towards ultimate moral righteousness. Moral judgments must be approached rationally and

with determinacy for the best possible solution. Both theories, by Kant and Mill, venerate traits

which must be considered daily when separating the morally right from the morally wrong.

According to Kant, one of the most famous German philosophers, the categorical

imperative is vital towards a precise decision in the case of moral judgment. Kant synthesized

two main categorical imperatives that should be used during the process of moral judgment. The

first of Kant’s categorical imperatives states that one must always act in such a way as to treat

people in ends and never as mere means to an end. Simply put, one must never abuse people for

their own benefit. Automatically, one could find the benefits of this principle. The first of which

is that the world would be fairer to each other and start a positive chain reaction of impartiality

and complete tolerance for one another. For example, business ethics would become a minority

compared to other problems in the office. Due to no one would be harassing one another, or

‘stepping over’ one another for a job or position, there would be a remarkable decrease in the

amount of abuse. The negative aspects of this principle include the matter that not all are capable

1
of living with such virtue and impartiality. For some, they find it difficult to return to the

community what has been given to them. Relating this to the example of birds grooming habits;

the Cheaters, the Grudgers, and the Suckers, the Cheaters act as those who are incapable of

giving back to the community. Ultimately, those who are the Suckers, permanently giving and

never expecting a return, will lose when following this principle. One is then confronted with the

question, is it fair to punish an innocent for the benefit of a positive community ideal? One could

quickly come to the conclusion that it is not fair to punish the innocent for the crimes of a

community. In the case of Kant’s theory, one can conclude that moral judgments are rationally

justified by the motive of the action opposed to the result.

Upon examining Mill’s principle of utility; always do whatever is likely to promote the

greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, one could find many positives and

negatives within it. The first positive trait that one could find in this theory is that it promotes

equal welfare for all people. For example, this principle enables leaders to make just decisions to

empower their citizens with power that they need to succeed and ultimately sustain the country.

The positives of this principle also include a greater number of people happier in a society. One

weakness that could be found is that corrupt individuals may skewer the perspective of

‘happiness’. Using the example of the Holocaust, where one man’s perspective of happiness and

overall welfare could cause the massacre of 12 million minorities. This principle of utilitarianism

could be applied to this extreme case to find truthful motives behind it’s lies and deceits that

were actually produced. Such a case uses utilitarianism because Adolf Hitler used the Jewish,

homosexuals and gypsies to exact his hatred, therefore, changing the meaning of happiness. To

conclude, this principle is mainly based off of the happiness of a community opposed to the

solitary happiness of the individual, and when the community is corrupt, then this principle is

2
invalid and impractical. Mill defines the morally right thing as the effort that benefits the greatest

amount of people. “If I am asked, ….what makes one pleasure more valuable than another….of

two pleasures, if there be one which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided

preference,…that is the most desirable pleasure.”(Mill 510) In this quote from Mill’s article on

utilitarianism, one can find the answer to the question of moral righteousness. He finds it best

suited for a community to settle with the choice that can be experienced and adapted to by all. He

feels that such a community would feel a sense of bond and inner strength due to the

compromises that one another have made for another. Ultimately, Mill defines the morally

justified option as such that will benefit the maximum amount of people.

Between these two principles, that were synthesized by Kant and Mill, one could find

many similarities as well as differences. Due to both philosophers approaching life with a

rational perspective, one could discover that most if not all, of their findings are at least

marginally accurate. The first and most obvious similarity would be that both theories promote

equality for all. In Kant’s categorical imperative, he clearly states that one must treat all as ends

in themselves, opposed to means to an end. This clear distinction allows for the promotion of

human rights as well as greater tolerance. In Mill’s theory on Utilitarianism, he defines happiness

as the greatest amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people. This principle shows

equality because it finds all people of the world to be equal to each other, therefore they must be

treated fairly and equally. For example, if both these principles were followed, the obscenities of

slavery would not have occurred. Due to people of all races and ethnicities being treated with

equal existence and prowess, the concept of enslaving another would not exist. Another

similarity that both these principles share, is that they both entrust the wellbeing of the society

within the hands of the individual. In theory, both these principles were meant to be used all in

3
every situation of moral decision. Both these principles leave it up to the individual to deem what

they feel will be the best possible outcome, whether it is positive or negative, Kant and Mill both

share a common perspective on the fact that people must do what is best for their community.

If one was to look closer and examine the differences between the two principles, one

could find many. Both Kant and Mill often disagree on many aspects of moral conduct. The first

and foremost difference is that Kant is referring to moral conduct on an individualistic basis

opposed to Mill’s societal principle. Kant finds it best suited for the public to depend on the

individual to treat each other equally and never abuse them for their own needs. However, Mill

finds it that one must look out for the betterment of society while making moral decisions, and

not merely one’s own wellbeing. Mill proves this in his principle on utilitarianism; the greatest

amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people. This part of his principle clearly shows

how he finds it best when each and every person looks out for the greater good of the society and

maximum amount of people opposed to just themselves. The next difference that can be found

between both these principles would be that Kant finds moral goodness to be defined by duty and

not by desire. As Mill finds that utilitarianism must be acted upon out of goodness and self-

justice. While Kant finds it difficult to attribute anyone for a good deed, deeming such an action

as the fulfillment of duty, Mill gladly would accredit such a good action for the goodness of the

motive it was produced from. This mark difference is the simple truth to the separation and

distinction between these two principles.

In conclusion, those who follow Mill’s principle of utilitarianism will be found to be

most successful. For those who value the greater good, opposed to the infatuation with instant

pleasure, are at a higher level. They find it within themselves to act upon righteousness and

morals, despite the temptation towards the amoral aspects of life. Mill’s principle of utility has
4
been admonished merely because of it’s view of happiness, but one must insist that happiness is

indeed the ultimate good. Happiness as well as righteousness defines the future of people,

carving out the essentials of development. Happiness acts as a catalyst to the good deeds that

occur world over. Mill’s principle of utility acts as a guide to assist people in the discovery to

reasoning or moral justification. By providing a law code to live by, one that is simple and easy

to follow, Mill allows for the common to act morally and ultimately separate the morally good

from the morally bad.