Back to category: People

Limited version - please login or register to view the entire paper.

Kant and Mill

Philosophy 2200
April 14, 2003
Cotton
Exam #2


In Utilitarianism, Mill argued that Kant was really a veiled consequentialist. Mill argued that in Kant’s theory before we perform any action, we should consider whether or not we could universalize the action. Once it is universalized, an action can be willed as a natural law, which is moral. Mill argued that considering whether or not an action could be universalized would only work if one looked at the consequences of such an action, and that considering the consequences makes it utilitarian. One Kantian response to such a claim is that Kant wrote that a good will was still good even if the effects were negative, and that outcomes cannot make a will good. This is dissimilar to Mill in that Mill wrote that even if one had the right intentions, if the consequences are bad, the action is not moral. Kant argued that even if we do a right action that has a good outcome, it is still not moral if we do it for the wrong reason. ...

Posted by: Justin Rech

Limited version - please login or register to view the entire paper.