Mill And Kants Theories Essays (3238 words) - Kantianism

Mill And Kant's Theories Get Essays - Essay Search - Submit Essays - Request Essays - Essay Links - FAQ Compare Mill and Kant's ethical theories; which makes a better societal order? John Stuart Mill (1808-73) believed in an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. There are many formulation of this theory. One such is, Everyone should act in such a way to bring the largest possibly balance of good over evil for everyone involved. However, good is a relative term. What is good? Utilitarians disagreed on this subject. Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as follows:According to the Greatest Happiness Principle ? The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments.Therefore, based on this statement, three i deas may be identified: (1) The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A good man is one who considers the other man's pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own. Each person's happiness is equally important.Mill believed that a free act is not an undetermined act. It is determined by the unconstrained choice of the person performing the act. Either external or internal forces compel an unfree act. Mill also determined that every situation depends on how you address the situation and that you are only responsible for your feelings and actions. You decide how you feel about what you think you saw.Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had an interesting ethical system. It is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solel y in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the right reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.Kant described two types of common commands given by reason: the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the basis of morality and was stated by Kant in these words: Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law. Therefore, before proceeding to act, you must decide what rule you would be following if you were to act, whether you are willing for that rule to be followed by everyone all over. If you are willing to universalize the act, it must be moral; if you are not, then the act is morally impermissible. Kant believed that the welfare of each individual should properly be regarded as an end in itself, as stated in the Formula of the End in Itself:Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.Kant believes that moral rules are exceptionless. Therefore, it is wrong to kill in all situations, even those of self-defense. This is belief comes from the Universal Law theory. Since we would never want murder to become a universal law, then it must be not moral in all situations.So which of the two theories would make a better societal order? That is a difficult question because both theories have problems. For Kant it is described above, his rules are absolute. Killing could

America and Imigration essays

America and Imigration essays When reading two articles that are decades apart, one sees that the nations, as a whole, opinion has changed about immigrants. In an article from 1905 the South wanted immigrants because they were cheap labor. Almost 80 years later, in 1983, the South had a different opinion about immigrants. In his 1905 article, Immigration and the South, Robert DeCoury Ward just begins to touch on the idea that immigrants could be bad for Americas economy. On the contrary, the 1983 article, Immigration: How Its Affecting US, James Fallows bluntly tells of immigration being harmful to the U.S. economy. When Robert DeCoury Ward wrote his article Immigration and the South, it was during a time when there was a heavy flow of immigrants to the North and the South was just beginning to receive immigrants. The North was clearly growing tired of the immigrants, yet the South welcomed them. For example, he stated, The North finds itself greatly burdened with the many problems which have grown out of, or have at least been greatly aggravated by immigration. He then goes on to say the following, The South is developing a newborn zeal for immigration. These two statements clearly show the opinions of the American people during this time in the 20th century. There are a few prime reasons for the Souths new zeal for immigration. First of all, the rapid growth of manufacturing resulted in a demand for thousands of new workmen. This was a need that the native population of America could not meet. Second, with the newly freed Negroes asking for higher wages and more vacation, landowners needed cheaper workers, which is exactly what the immigrants were. One other key reason, and maybe the one that standouts the most, is that the South had not really experienced immigration ye ...