John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant look at the nature of morality from opposite directions. Explain the general difference between Mill's utilitarianism and Kant's deontological view and why each approaches the issue from the direction he does. Develop two examples of your own, each of which involves a choice between two courses of action. Set the examples up so that if the agent uses Kant's ...[Show More]
2 years ago
In practical ethics, two arms of thoughts exist in
decision-making: Utilitarian and deontological. In utilitarian ethics, outcomes
justify the means or ways to achieve it, whereas in deontological ethics,
duties/obligations are of prime importance (i.e., end/outcomes may not justify
In the utilitarian approach, decisions are chose based on
the greatest amount of benefit obtained for the greatest number of individuals.
This is also known as the consequentialist approach since the outcomes
determine the morality of the intervention. This approach could lead to harm to
some individuals while the net outcome is maximum benefit. This approach is
usually guided by the calculated benefits or harms for an action or
intervention based on evidence. A few examples of utilitarian approach in
medical care include setting a target by hospitals for resuscitation of
premature newborns (gestational age) or treatment of burns patients (degree of
injury) based on the availability of time and resources.
In contrast to the utilitarian concept, deontology is ethics
of duty where the morality of an action depends on the nature of the action,
i.e., harm is unacceptable irrespective of its consequences. This concept was
introduced by a philosopher, Immanuel Kant and hence widely referred as Kantian
deontology. The decisions of deontology may be appropriate for an individual
but does not necessarily produce a good outcome for the society. The
doctor-patient interaction or relationship is by nature, deontological since
medical teaching practices inculcate this tradition, and when this deontological
practice is breached, the context of medical negligence arises. This tradition
drives clinicians to do good to patients, strengthening the doctor-patient
bond. The deontological ideologists (doctors and other medical staffs) are
usually driven to utilitarian approach by public health professionals, hospital
managers, and politicians (utilitarian ideologists).
Kant’s Deontology is based on rationalizing universal
principles of behavior (not an agent’s intentions, as some others have
incorrectly stated). Killing (other moral agents or anyone) is always morally
wrong because, if everyone did it, no moral agent would be left alive to act.
This is not an argument from consequences. It is an argument from the absurdity
of universalizing the counter-principle to the one we are proposing. Kant
believed we could rationally determine our moral principles regardless of their
consequences, essentially by logic and reason alone.
Kant affirmed all of the virtues popular in previous Virtue
Theories from the Classical period throughout the Middle Ages, but as he did so
often, attempted to provide epistemological foundations for those virtues by a
single principle of reason and logic. Lying is always bad because it cannot be
universalized, therefore honesty is always good. Good will or intentions are
always good because they can be universalized, while bad will or intentions
cannot. We can reason that charity is always good, while theft is always bad,
based on their ability to be universalized or not.
In epistemological terms, Kant is usually considered a
Rationalist because he believed that reason ultimately provides the epistemic
justification for true beliefs. He carries his epistemological rationalism over
to the moral justification of virtuous behavior and lack of moral justification
for vices in order to provide a stronger philosophical foundation for
traditional Virtue Ethics. Deontology is a moral theory based on reason and
logic about which behaviors are morally permissible and which are not. Its
logical structure is parallel to the dual modal structure of possibility and
necessity in ontology and metaphysics. The entire notion and language of
inalienable (human) rights and privileges is based on Kant’s Deontology.
Mill was also looking for the epistemic justification for
ethics, but he starts from a very different view of epistemic justification.
Mill was an Empiricist, which means that he viewed empirical methods as those
which provide the epistemic justification for true beliefs. So rather than
reason and logic alone, Mill tries to find an explanation for ethics in the
Renaissance of scientific methods. This different epistemological approach
provides Mill with a moral theory which looks completely different from
classical and medieval virtue theories.
Mill could have opted for a completely naturalistic causal
description of moral behavior, but for some reason, like Kant he is also
interested in providing a method for determining good behavior. Both Mill and
Kant are considered Moral Realists, meaning that they believe moral
propositions can be true or false. So it could be that Mill didn’t opt for a
completely causal explanation because he thought it might lead to a sort of
Moral Skepticism or Amorality (something like the idea that we can only study
ethics as that of what people believe and do about ethics without affirming or
denying any particular moral propositions). Mill might have also thought, along
with a good majority of philosophers, that ethics has an inextricably
prescriptive component (which is often argued to be both normative and
Whatever the motivations or reasons, Mill’s Utilitarianism
has two components, a descriptive one and a prescriptive one. The descriptive
component can be considered the causal explanation of moral goods (where the
cause of moral goods is to be studied empirically), while the prescriptive
component can be considered as a sort of weighing of the effects of moral
behavior (where the moral behavior is the cause to be studied empirically).
The conclusion of the Problem of Evil argument is that God does not exist. If you disagree with this conclusion, explain clearly why you think the P...
By CPA Guru · 2 years ago
Explain the metaphysical issue of free will, including why we think it is important. What is the fundamental question, and what other kind of freedo...
By CPA Guru · 2 years ago
(1) In Section IV of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume presents a problem regarding certain beliefs about matters of fact. This ...
By CPA Guru · 2 years ago
In what ways are Marxism and Feminism similar?...
By Professor Henry · 3 years ago
Compare and contrast the major themes and terms of Confucianism and Taoism. Are these two religions conplementary or opposites?...
By · 3 years ago