John Mill and Immanuel Kant both seen moralities to be encouraged by something but had different terms at the end of the day. Mill principle had something to do with utilitarianism. The definition of Utilitarianism is maximizing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Meaning it is taking all the effects of the action for everyone and subtracting the bad effects from the good effects. Utilitarianism is a form of universalistic consequentialism which mean that the right thing to do is what produces the greatest good for everyone. The actions can be immediate and long term. He thinks what motivates individuals to act is pleasure or the avoidance of pain. This could be the reason people make the decisions they do or the way they view the world (Mill, John 1879). Kant theory was basically dealing with hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. Hypothetical imperative can be defined as one performs an act based on trying to achieve something outside of the act. Categorical imperative means one performs an action without conditions. Kant says that hypothetical imperative is considered immoral and categorical imperative is moral. He feels like how you are feeling at the time have something to do with morality.
Philippa Foot is a philosopher who was British. He came up with a thought experiment that consisted of two scenarios. Both of the scenarios had the same outcomes, but it was the way they were reached that changed if it was accepted morally. Rescue I and Rescue II shows that it is a huge difference between letting someone die and killing. To be more specific it between allowing the harm or doing the harm. Cases in letting die allow harm but in most cases, death is not considered harm. In these kinds of situations, you cannot win because killing is definitely worse than letting die. Letting someone die knowing you could have help prevent it from happening is not good, but you also will not be the blame for that person death. The only difference is you are not responsible for someone death if you let die.
John Mill an English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century. He was known to be the most influential English philosopher back in their time. In Rescue I, Mill will tell the rescuer to save the group of five from the threatened ocean tide and leave the single guy to die. When it comes down to Rescue II, he would tell the rescuer to run the guy over to save the group of five from drowning. People probably wondering why he made the decision he did for Rescue II. Well he made that decision because the theory of utilitarianism states that if you save the five it would maximize happiness and prevent much more suffering. It is sometimes to be said that utilitarianism tells people to do what leads to the greatest good for everyone affected. The Principle of Utility tells that we should commit an action if it brings about happiness, pleasure, good or even prevents pain/unhappiness. People should find an action if it does. It is said that a utility that is positive is when it increases happiness more than devalue it.
Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher during the late eighteenth century. He was one of the most influential philosophers in the Western philosophy. According to Kant deontological theory, it states that individuals are morally obligated to act right with particular sets of principles and rules regardless of the outcome. The word deontological come from a Greek word deon that means duty. In Rescue I, Kant would tell the rescuer to save the group of five from the threatened ocean tide and try to save the single person who also needs help. On the other hand, Rescue II he would tell the rescuer not to drive over the man to save the other five because that will make the situation worse by leaving someone hurt. Kant believes in situations that never makes things worse instead it does the situation some good. The first version of the Categorical Imperative specifically applies in both situations because Kant said people should act according to the maxim that an individual would wish all other people to follow as if it were universal law. The maxim would be doing what is right for both situations. We have to figure out what did the rescuer do to achieve the action or what was the motive of the situation. The duty in this situation is an action done out of respect of the law. The second version of the Categorical Imperative will be always treating others as ends and not means. It applies in this situation because as humans we have value in itself. Individuals should respect their worth as humans. Meaning the actions of an individual is determined by human will. A person has a will to decide, choose, or act on what decisions they want to make.
Deontological theories are different from utilitarian theories. The biggest difference is that utilitarianism looks forward to greatest happiness or the best consequences. Deontological theories know that some things are wrong even if it leads to a great outcome. An act could be morally bad but can lead to the greatest outcome either. Mill theory says that people is obligated to take action that achieves the most positive outcome or consequence. Mill feels like the quality of a pleasure is more important than the quantity of pleasure. Kant concern was based on a good will. The nature of good will to Kant is basically the only thing that is good with qualification. Doing one’s duty was important to him. Mill is more concerned about the consequences of the action, but Kant is not concerned about the consequences at all.
John Mill and Immanuel Kant had their difference and similarities. They both had a way to agree that morality is always encouraged by something and do not just happen. In my opinion, Kant view is more superior to me than Mill. Kant really explains the reasoning of morality better and have a better point of view. Moral norm is what makes a choice right. Meaning right takes priority of good. He feels like a good will chose out of moral duty. It all start with good in itself. I see Mill theory has hurting someone to get some type of happiness. I do not think it’s fair because it does not give anything justice by doing that. People should always choose to make the right decision without being told to or even harming anybody.
In conclusion, both had valuable points and they both made people view their points in a different perspective. Mill point was sometimes to be said that utilitarianism tells people to do what leads to the greatest good for everyone affected. I feel like it does not matter if their choice is bad at long as the person is happy at the end of the day. Individuals should make choices that can lead to making them happy and having a good outcome at the same time. Do not make a temporary choice when you can make a long term one that will make everyone happy and do not leave anyone hurt. Some motives are good, and some are just bad.