Both Mill and Kant have their own unique arguments about the motivations behind our actions. Kant believes that the only moral actions are ones in which we act in accordance with what we would want to become a universal law. He argues that even if the results of an action are favorable, it is not a moral act if the person acts out of self interest, or any other interest that is not in accordance with a universal law that would be beneficial to anyone in a similar position. Mill takes the opposite stance, saying that it does not matter what the motivation is as long as the result benefits the greatest number of people possible.
The major disagreement between these two positions lies in the means in which an end is achieved. Both philosophers agree that the end result of any action should be that which conforms to moral standards. The core of the disagreement can be seen only by looking in the hearts of the people who make the decisions and then act on them. They disagree abou
While Kant’s argument may be something that sounds nice in theory, it is Mill’s argument that is more grounded in reality. If a person goes through life making moral decisions for every situation he encounters he is a moral person. It is unrealistic to think that people do so solely because they wish for their actions to become universal law. This is too lofty of an expectation for humans. The more likely reason is that doing the right thing makes people feel good about themselves or look good in the eyes of others. A good example to illustrate this point is that of community service. Almost every employer nowadays looks for community service on a candidate’s resume. Therefore college students do community service. Very few college students do community service purely because they believe it will make they believe that doing community service purely because they believe they are doing something good. Most will say they do it for that reason, but in reality they want to
Example Essays Home
