Immanuel Kant is just as deeply flawed as John Stuart Mill. For an ethical system to work, it has to produce desired results with a reasonable amount of consistency. In a system like Kant’s if most of its people lack a certain characteristic, the system will fail. Kant makes this mistake when forming his theories of the categorical imperative. For Kant, moral rules are commands that apply to everyone in every situation. Kant says that we should follow this imperative because it’s demanded by reason, and that a free person is only one that acts on reason and doesn’t pay attention to influences that aren’t rational. For example, Kant believes that there are no exceptions for moral laws. Therefore, it is wrong to kill people in all situations, even in self-defense. Also, placing intentions rather than outcomes at the center of his moral theory makes for more negativity than he intended. Kant says that a good act without a moral intent has no value, but then why would anyone want to be on the receiving end of a moral intention that’s going to end up an unjust action. Another thing is his assumption of absolutes. This wouldn’t work because many rules that the majority of humans believe in are fine until people ask questions and other cultures believe differently.

In conclusion, Mills theory of Utilitarianism justifies the gre

Some topics in this essay:
Kant Mills, Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, Stuart Mills, Mills Kant, ICE Kant’s, , theory utilitarianism, John Stuart, believes exceptions moral, immanuel kant, believes exceptions, exceptions moral, moral rules, universal law, moral theory, act considered, kant act, utility happiness,