Contrast In Mill And Kant’s Philosophical Theories
Ethics are basically what people choose to be better or worse. These theories deal with values relating to human action according to their ways of life. The best two philosophers dealing with ethics are Kant and Mill. Kant emphasizes deontological ethics, while Mill deals with utilitarianism.
Both theories have differences in that Kant’s theory puts more emphasis on conduct and searching for better deeds at work while Mill’s theory explains the outcome. They are also increasing Happiness of human beings by acting in a way that produces sound for a large number of people. Concerning conception of the good, Kant says that the goodwill results in Happiness and deserving Happiness whereas Mill explains Happiness as the absence of pain. According to Kant, morality is exclusively irrational, while Mill says it is unreasonable (Baron, 1997). Kant says that social context is required for honesty while Mill opposes. Kant focuses on the evaluation of individual agents while Mills deals with collective consequences. (Mills, 2007).
Kant argues that the status of morality is innate while Mill says that it is acquired and cultivated. Besides, Kant argues that the attitude to popular morality is an agreement, But Mill states that it brings the willingness to reform. Lastly, Kant derives the principle of moral action from the agent itself while Mill derives it from the moral correctness of the specific work.
Conclusion
Kantian ethics is better than utilitarianism because it is easier to determine actions to be morally upright. When data are scarce, Kantian theory tends to offer more precision as compared to utilitarianism because one can we can decide if one is being used even in cases where human Happiness is substantial.
Reference
Baron, M. (1997). Kantian ethics. Three methods of ethics, 3-91.
Mills, C. W. (2007). The domination contract. Contract and domination, 79-105.