Does the moral worth of an action come from the consequence or the thought behind that action? In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant states that “the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it” but that it is motivated out of respect for the moral law (Kant 401). However, in Utilitarianism, Mill supports the claim that what makes actions good is the outcome, not the action’s initial moral worth, “the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much with the worth of the agent” (Mill 18). This is also called consequentialism. In order to develop a clear argument, Kant uses the example of an honest shopkeeper and distinguishes between certain premises of his argument. On the other hand, Mill states that the Greatest Happiness Principle is the supreme principle of morality through a series of arguments. After examining both sides, I agree with Mill’s argument more than Kant’s because it seems abnormal to make the claim that all things must be done strictly out of respect for the moral law. Both philosophers use different examples to justify their arguments and although both make some good points, Mill, in my opinion, has a more reasonable argument.
Immanuel Kant states that there are two different branches of material philosophy: ethical philosophy and physical philosophy. Ethics attends to the laws that govern how things should happen, and physics concerns itself about the laws about how things do that. He also says that good without qualification is The Good Will. Good isn’t action contrary to duty, or action in accord with duty from ulterior motive. It also is not action in accord with duty from immediate inclination, but it is action performed from duty. An action must be done from duty in order to have any moral worth, and an action done from duty has it moral worth not in the purpose that’s to be attained by it but in the maxim, or the complete story about how your conduct is responsive to reasons, according to which it’s determined. What is more, duty is the necessity of an action done out of respect for the moral law. Looking at laws, we see that the law of gravity is applied universally impartially to each object in its domain, the Pennsylvania drunk driving laws apply to people in Pennsylvania, and the moral law applies to all rational beings. Kant thinks there’s no such thing as clear, uncontroversial case relating to if someone acted out of duty, because we all may be bad, but just do good things solely for the reason of duty and make those choices to feel good. This must be investigated A priori not empirically, because A priori is better than knowledge. This is because the moral law holds for all rational beings, not just for those of which we’ve experienced, and the moral law holds unconditionally not just under certain conditions, so the moral law is necessary. Good will derives from respect for the moral law, not from the consequences of the moral law.
Firstly, in Kant’s book, he compares two shopkeepers. In his scenario, these two shopkeepers both give the correct change to their customers. The first shopkeeper is honest because he doesn’t want to be caught trying to cheat his customers. The second shopkeeper is honest because he believes in the moral law. This shows the first doesn’t act from duty, but the second does, and although the consequence is the same, it is for different reasons that they perform their actions. The fact is that the first isn’t truly doing his duty, because his duty to be honest is not his reason for being honest. Even though the consequences of their actions are the same, their reasons for doing it are not. This shows how good will comes out of respect for the moral law and not just the consequences, because if the first shopkeeper knew he would not be caught cheating, he would cheat his customers. He doesn’t respect the moral law, and therefore he doesn’t have the good will.
Secondly, John Stuart Mill in Utilitarianism, gives us “The Greatest Happiness Principle” which is that actions are good insofar as they promote happiness. Mill starts in chapter one with some general remarks that ethical philosophy is backwards, due to the fact that there’s no consensus about the basic principle of ethics. This is a problem, because ethics is a practical method and the principle in in ethics is the goal of ethics. However, what exactly is a principle? A principle is a law, so ethical philosophy should be about finding the law. Everyone agrees about basic laws such as don’t steal or don’t kill, but we don’t know our fundamental law, and it is undeniable that a concern for happiness has driven a great deal of our moral thinking.
Then, Mill goes on to defend utilitarianism, and what it is. He goes through a series of eleven objections and responds to almost each one. Objection 1: Utilitarianism wrongly emphasizes the useful over pleasure. Mill responds that this is false and points us towards the Greatest Happiness Principle, “Actions are right insofar as they tend to promote happiness. Actions are wrong insofar as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is pleasure, and the absence of pain” (Mill 7). The Greatest Happiness Principle is essentially consequentialism plus The Happiness Theory of Good Consequences, where The Happiness Theory of Good Consequences is the view that consequences are good insofar as they involve happiness. Objection 2: “The Swine Objection” – utilitarianism is unfit for humans because it sees no higher purpose to life than to go after pleasure. Mill responds that the objectors, not the utilitarians, degrade human beings by making this objection. In fact, humans can achieve much better pleasures than swine Objection 3: Happiness is unattainable (Mill 12). Mill states that the people who raise this objection are exaggerating. It's not possible to have a continuous uninterrupted life of happiness. Objection 4: We may not have a right to be happy (Mill 12).
Mill either forgot to, or didn’t respond to this objection. Objection 5: Aren’t we morally obliged to go without happiness sometimes (Mill 12)? Mill says the times we go without happiness are the times where we go without happiness for others to have happiness. Martyrdom is only morally sensible when it generates a greater net balance of happiness in the world (Mill 15-16). Objection 6: What utilitarianism requires of us is too hard, because we cannot always act with the welfare of everyone’s mind. It is too difficult to be motivated in the right way or arrange one’s psyche so you care about everyone (we should care about everyone), and it is too difficult to figure out what action will create a good amount of happiness (Mill 18). Mill agrees that this is true, but we are hardly ever in the position to affect more than a handful of individuals. Objection 7: Utilitarianism renders men cold and un-sympathizing to the people around them (Mill 20). Mill says moral theory must separate evaluation of acts from evaluation of agents. Utilitarianism is not a view of what makes people good it’s a view of what makes actions good. He says that some utilitarians are cold and un-sympathizing but that’s not a problem for the theory, it’s just their problem. Objection 8: Utilitarianism is a Godless Doctrine. Mill says that utilitarianism is only a Godless doctrine if God disagrees with it. Objection 9: Utilitarian considerations are considerations of expediency (Mill 23). As Mill said before on page 17, the greatest happiness principle recommends pursuing everyone’s happiness, not just that of the agent. Objection 10: there is insufficient time to calculate the right course of action when it’s necessary to make a decision (Mill 23). Mill says there has been ample time, namely the whole history of humanity in which we have been learning through experience that stealing, murder, etc. are injurious to happiness (Mill 23-24). Objection 11: By recognizing multiple subordinate principles, Utilitarianism makes it easy for people in tricky situations to justify acting wrongly (Mill 25). Mill states that this problem stems from human nature not from the theory. At least Utilitarianism provides us with a supreme principle- The Greatest Happiness Principle, which we can use to settle situations where it seems like subordinate principles conflict.
After addressing these objections, Mill states why the utilitarianism teaching is true. We have to look at reasoning toward principles, facts v. values. Facts are science and mathematics, here principles are proven by bringing them before our faculties for judging facts. Values are ethics, here principles are proven the same way but faculties are different, they’re desire. Our faculty of desire goes after happiness. Now, we look at how utilitarianism teaching is true, and what the supreme principle of morality is.
1. The only proof that something is visible is that people actually see it
2. Desirability is analogous to visibility and audibility in this respect, Mill states this.
3. So, the only proof that something is desirable is that people actually desire it.
4. People do desire happiness as an end
5. So that happiness is desirable as an end
C. The general happiness is desirable to the aggregate of all people.
6. Nothing else is desirable.
7. General happiness is the only desirable thing.
8. The supreme principle of morality must be desirable.
C. The supreme principle of morality is the general happiness.
As soon as you start to pursue something as an end, you’re pursuing it as a part of happiness. Mill uses these arguments to form his general statement of consequentialism, which is that the value of an action is less important than the value of that action’s consequences.
After examining both arguments, John Stuart Mill’s consequentialism is a better view than Kant’s view of moral law. Kant’s view looks at how the moral law is the only thing that should be factored in, instead of examining the consequences of the moral law. It’s not as simple as just looking at the moral law, but also looking at the consequences of people’s actions in accordance with the moral law. What happens when two moral laws conflict? For instance, the duty to be nice conflicting with the duty of being honest. Let’s say someone walks out of a dressing room in a horrible dress, and asks how they look. Would that person tell them that they look bad, thus hurting their feelings, or lie to save their feelings? In this scenario, one would probably break the moral law of lying, in order to spare that person’s feelings, or they wouldn’t tell them the whole truth of how bad they look. Either way, the consequence in this scenario outweighs the value of the moral law.
In conclusion, Mill’s view is more practical than that of Kant’s view. Immanuel Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals gives reasoning as to why following the moral law leads to greater happiness than the consequences of following the moral law. He utilizes the shopkeeper argument to explain his view further. However, John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism furthers Kant’s idea by saying that it’s not just by following the moral law that a person can obtain happiness, but also through the consequences of following the moral law. By going a step further than Kant, that’s what makes Mill’s view better than Kant’s. It adds a piece of clarity and specification that Kant’s argument didn’t have.