Carr 1
Khiana Carr
Professor Everly
Modern World Values
3 October 2012
Utilitarianism vs. Universal Law
Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper cause of action is
the one that maximizes overall happiness. John Mill characterized utilitarianism as a quantitive
and reductionist approach to ethics. Immanuel Kant’s theory is based on the moral duty. He
explains that a good will is the only good thing and that an action is only good if performed out
of duty rather than desire. Kant states that it is morally good if it can be applied to the universal
law; which is being able to apply to all rational beings at all times. So as you can see both
theories are different, but similar at the same time. You can compare and contrast details of both
philosophies and see what consequences apply.
The difference between John Mill and Immanuel Kant theories is that Mill describes the
seeking of pleasure to have overall happiness; while Kant describes the moral good of
something. Mill argues that while people desire other things such as virtue, which means to
happiness, then it becomes part of someone happiness. For example, if you desire to get lunch
and you leave a tip to the waitress, she is happy to have extra money. Kant asserts that good will
is action; action is only good if performed out of duty. For example, if someone was to make a
promise and keep that promise. Both theories have different backgrounds, but if you explore
deeply they could also have something in common.
Carr 2
In comparison of both Mill and Kant theory, they both carry with religious meaning.
Utilitarianism is parallel to Christianity. From the Christianity perspective the Bible tell us that
joy rises above all circumstances. With Kant’s connection to the Bible, it tells us to always do
onto others as u want done to you. Even though it’s not the exact description of both
philosophers, they have some type of connection.
Along with these two good moral philosophies it has its consequences. Mills philosophy
does not have many benefits but only to be happy. Not all happiness comes on its own; it deals
with other people as well. The problem with his theory is that a person could do whatever they,
whenever they want and it’s not certain that it’s good or bad. It is possible for something to be
the right thing to you to be done from a bad motive. Kant’s philosophy deals with universal law
and the rules cannot be bent. In real life everyone will not follow all the rules. If you did not like
a person for a certain reason, you would not do anything for them that you would do for your
best friend. So the universal law wouldn’t be applied. Therefore, there are downfalls for both
philosophies.
With both philosophies being analyzed and broken down you see that both are similar but
different in a way. Mills theory, Utilitarianism, deals with increasing pleasure for happiness.
Along with Kant’s theory about moral duty. The pair of values each philosopher bring have
different morals but also similarity when it comes to Christianity. While both idealists have
strong beliefs they both had some consequences. Kant’s philosophy was a bit more realistic than
John Mill theory.