Kant’s Moral Theory
According to Kant, ‘moral duty is an obligation that binds all moral agents’ and it forms the basis of categorical imperative or the moral-law (Kant 110). Kant’s moral theory touches on three aspects of any act. The first aspect of this moral theory is its universality, where he specifies that any act that someone performs should have the ability to be turned into a desirable universal law.
The other aspect of Kant’s moral theory requires that one should “act in such a way that he/she treats Humanity, whether in his/her own person or in the person of another as an end in itself and never merely as a means” (Kant 111). This requirement touches on human dignity and it urges human beings, not to ‘use’ others.
The third aspect of Kant’s moral theory touches on reciprocation and it says that one should act in such a way that he/she is both the legislated and a legislator when it comes to end results. For instance, the reciprocation one receives from doing a certain act should appear fair to all involved parties. In summation, Kant’s moral theory employs a system of thinking that mixes with metaphysics, politics, religion, and philosophy.
Mill’s Moral Theory
Mill’s moral theory is based on the premise of individual happiness. This theory specifies that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 121). According to Mill, happiness is the attainment of pleasure and lack of pain. Mill’s moral theory recognizes that pleasure comes in various qualities and quantities.
Therefore, any form of pleasure that serves a person’s best interests of absolute importance. In addition, Mill’s theory is that the fulfillment of personal goals qualifies as pleasure. For instance, people who dedicate their lives to virtuous living achieve fulfillment and pleasure by achieving this lifestyle.
Mill’s moral theory aligns itself with the natural sentiments of human nature and adapting this theory in society would enable everyone to lead a natural and fulfilling life. According to Mill, happiness is directly connected to morality and people only adhere to morals that coincide with their own pleasures.
Furthermore, all the things that people desire are only meant to make them happy. Mill’s moral theory generally upholds the concept that “the sentiment of justice is actually based on utility and that rights exist only because they are necessary to the human happiness” (Mill 119).
John’s Dilemma
John is considering selling his car and use the money for his family’s needs or donate it to the veteran’s association. Either way, John has to get rid of the car in one way or another. According to Kant’s moral theory, John can only sell the car and use the money for his family’s benefit. John’s family is not in support of his decision and therefore his actions do not represent the will of his family.
If John was put in a similar position as any of his family members, he would be in support of the decision to sell. Consequently, this action would be more befitting as a universal law. On the other hand, Mill’s moral theory would encourage John to do whatever makes him happy. John would most likely be happy after supporting the veteran’s association as he has already considered this decision.
However, his family members would most likely have a different opinion. According to Mill, personal decisions should bring pleasure to an individual and not a collective. Mill’s argument is better and more straightforward than Kant’s is. For instance, John’s family members could be split in the middle about their opinions and while Mill’s theory covers this scenario, Kant’s does not.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, New York, NY: Yale University Press, 2002. Print.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism, New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971. Print.