Friday, October 9, 2015
John Stuart Mill & Immanuel Kant
The past couple of weeks in class have been quite interesting. We have been studying the philosophical theories of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, two philosophers with completely opposite views. Mill believes the consequences of one's actions provide the moral significance and value to those actions, while Kant stands behind the notion that one's motive and will is more important and offers the moral worth. In all honesty, I believe it's both. I have a tendency to lean more towards Kant's perspective that the will, the duty behind one's actions plays a slightly more significant role in justifying the morality of their action or decision simply because it deals more with the heart of the matter (pun slightly intended). If one's heart is not in the right place, if they do not possess a "good will," how can they be expected to make moral decisions? Without an understanding that humans do indeed have a moral obligation to be kind and treat one another fairly, we would have no reason to behave morally. However, there are also instances that we do "the wrong thing for the right reason." In these instances, the consequences may justify not obliging to one's moral duty. It's almost like a grilled cheese sandwich. Bread is good. Cheese is good. But together they are magical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Immanuel Kant’s notion that the moral worth of an action cannot derive from its consequences because it is impossible to predict the future and what the end result of an action will be. However, as you stated, John Stuart Mill believes that the consequences determine the moral worth of an action. I agree with you in the sense that both can play a part in determining the moral worth of an action. For instance, a person decides she wants to donate money to a St. Jude because she wants to help an organization aimed at treating children, and the consequence of that action is that money being used to support a good cause. Both the intent of the action and the consequence are morally good in that case. On the other hand, consequences cannot always be predicted as we mentioned in class. Someone could have good intentions but the end result may be bad as the person who gave donuts to homeless people without knowing the baker poisoned them. The individual had good intentions and did a good deed by giving food to the homeless; however, it was not her fault that the donuts were poisoned, and the baker should be held responsible. A person can also have selfish intentions, do an action, and it result in good consequences. The example given in class included a guy offering to walk an old lady across the street because he anticipates receiving a lot of money. Would that still make the action morally good? Overall, I feel both Kant and Mill’s ideas are true depending on the situation.
ReplyDeleteI hate this saying but it is a matter of perspective. Islamic extremists have the motive and will to make the entire world fall under the religious duties of Islam and they will go to great lengths that all other people of faiths are either converted or simply killed. During the crusades both the Christians and the Muslims made it their duty, goal and motive to eliminate each other in order to regain the Holy Land. Our military has a duty to defend the country against threats both foreign and domestic yet if a soldier kills an enemy combatant on the field who probably was of no significant to the whole of the country, is he justified? We understand his motives and duties so is it justified? Is the consequence of killing one individual who alone presents no real threat to the nation justifiable?
ReplyDeleteI also favor Kant's idea as well. I have always wanted to be like Adam Sandler's character in Mr. Deeds. Everything his character does is for just the pleasure of doing good things. I do believe that you can not hold people responsible for what happens in the end. Because what if they did not know that their good action would have bad ending. Although I hate that with your quote "the wrong thing for the right reason." is the big hole in this philosophy.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, I am a supporter of Kant. I feel like the more that we focus on the outcome of a decision, we stop thinking about other factors that could effect the outcome of something. When we look solely on what is in someone's heart, we get to get a look into their true intentions and morals.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how things still have to be qualified -- how certain motivations are inherently incapable of being linked to a good will or a categorical imperative, so that things still need reasoning out, even in something as dependent upon absolutes as Kant's theory!
ReplyDelete