Kant’s Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals argument sates that, there is only one thing that is intrinsically good without qualification, no matter whether conceived in earthly or heavenly context, thus being a good will. This good will can, “shine by its own light,” with neither the possibility of adding nor taking away anything from its value. The environment then only allows one to work with it more conveniently or to bring attention to the good will.

Kant argues that with the absence of good will, gifts of nature such as talents of the mind or qualities of temperament along with gifts of fortune, although obviously good, may become evil and wrong if the will or character wie

A main argument made by Mill is that few humans would give up what they posses, in order to attain even the most complete satisfaction of someone having a lower standard. A person of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, because he has a greater capability of experiencing more intense pain, and is accessible to it at more points than one of an inferior type, even in spite of this however he cannot nor will ever wish to sink into the lower existence. This is true because of many reasons but none more so then a sense of dignity. Beings with capacities for enjoyment that are low have the greatest chances of having them satisfied, while higher endowed beings will always feel that any happiness which can be sought out is imperfect.

In looking and contrasting both Kant and Mill’s arguments it is clear that both, like any good theory should, are open to their share of criticism; however one defends itself fuller and makes more sense than the other. Kant’s arguments are based on the presumption that there is no God, which is really a subjective view since the majority of opinions even in his time, objectively acknowledged a higher being than themselves as man has throughout history and continues to do. Mill’s arguments are based on ideals of a better human existence, with no presumptions as great as Kant does. Mill’s argument is based off what is believed objectively and can be witnessed by any with some thought. It is because of this distinction that it is clear Mill presents and develops his arguments more effectively and persuasively than Kant attempts to.

Mill views humanity as a whole working for itself to provide the greatest happiness, and not the individual working for his/her own greatest happiness. Mill believes that the action is what matters and not the motive; the action is still good whether or not the motive is morally right. Kant however believes that the action should not be done unless the person committing the moral action is not intentionally withdrawing anything from it; since it would only harmonize with humanity negatively and not positively if something was to be gained. From looking at this comparison in a worldly respect, it is obvious that not only would a lot less good actions be done, but it seem they are effecting the world in a negative respect. Where Mill sees the outward action, which is what really matters, and really all that can be judged upon by others, therefore Mill’s argument is once again the more practical and realistic one.

He states that an animal’s pleasures cannot satisfy a human hunger for happiness. A human’s standards and expectations of happiness are much greater than that of a lower being’s, and when made aware of them, do not look upon anything as happiness that doesn’t include their gratification. There are however, different kinds of pleasures, some more desirable and valuable than others. Mill argues that it would be foolish to consider quality as well as quantity in estimating the pleasure; it should be dependant upon the quantity alone. Now in determining what pleasures are better or more desirable, it should rest in what all or most others prefer, without concern to any feelings of moral obligation to prefer it.

Some topics in this essay:
John Mill’s, Mill Kant, Metaphysics Morals, Examples Kant, According Kant, Kant Mill’s, Finally Kant, Morals Utilitarianism, mill’s argument, kant argues, own happiness, argument based, universal law, john mill’s, mill’s argument utilitarianism, argument utilitarianism, Fundamental Principles, Principles Metaphysics, principles metaphysics morals, arguments based, value dignity, pleasures desirable, john mill’s argument, mill’s argument based, own happiness amount,