Immanuel Kant vs. John Stuart Mill

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Immanuel Kant: morals are categorical imperatives -- morality is an absolute objective truth which exists independent of human thought and opinion.

John Stuart Mill: ethics are constructed by humans on the basis of utilitarian and practical considerations. Consequences matter in the context of ethics. Whatever brings happiness to the greatest number of people is a true measure of morality.


According to Kant there are absolute truths of morality. One can arrive at these truths through rational thought. Kant gives us various formulations of his rule of the categorical imperative which is, Kant believes, wholly derived from rational thought.

In contrast to Kantian ethics, the nature of morality in Mill's formulation of utilitarianism does not require an appeal to absolute ethical truths separate from situational applications. For Mill, morality is established through consideration of the utility to humankind of any given action.

https://www.csueastbay.edu/philosophy/reflections/2008/contents/tyrus-fish.html
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
Immanuel Kant: morals are categorical imperatives -- morality is an absolute objective truth which exists independent of human thought and opinion.

John Stuart Mill: ethics are constructed by humans on the basis of utilitarian and practical considerations. Consequences matter in the context of ethics. Whatever brings happiness to the greatest number of people is a true measure of morality.
Click to expand...

Kant was just stating Christian theology in secular terms.
 
from the internet
Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals", regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other distinguishing feature.
 
BidenPresident said:
Hume was not a sceptic. But...we can debate that if you so choose.
Click to expand...

Most professional philosophers I have listened to, and most reputable internet sources I have read consider Hume to be famous for his skepticism.

Encyclopedia Britannica

David Hume, Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist known especially for his philosophical empiricism and skepticism.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/David-Hume
Click to expand...
His skepticism seems self evident to me. He thought all our mind has access to is experiences filtered through sensory perception - and we therefore can never have actual knowlege of objective reality.
 
goat said:
from the internet
Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals", regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other distinguishing feature.
Click to expand...

Sounds vaguely Kantian
 
Cypress said:
Most professional philosophers I have listened to, and most reputable internet sources I have read consider Hume to be famous for his skepticism.

His skepticism seems self evident to me. He thought all our mind has access to is experiences filtered through sensory perception - and we therefore can never have actual knowlege of objective reality.
Click to expand...
BidenPresident said:
He never says that.
Click to expand...

That is precisely what Hume says

Encyclopedia Britannica

Hume tried to describe how the mind works in acquiring what is called knowledge. He concluded that no theory of reality is possible; there can be no knowledge of anything beyond experience.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/David-Hume
Click to expand...
 
goat said:
I was attempting to side with John Stuart Mill.
Click to expand...

Mill's view of ethics was utilitarian and situational. I thought the quote you posted was making the case a moral reality is universal and objectively true. May be I read the quote wrong.
 
BidenPresident said:
repeat.
Click to expand...

I am not going to indulge your argument that Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong.


Cypress said:
Hume's skepticism seems self evident to me. He thought all our mind has access to is experiences filtered through sensory perception - and we therefore can never have actual knowlege of objective reality.
Click to expand...


Encyclopedia Britannica

Hume tried to describe how the mind works in acquiring what is called knowledge. He concluded that no theory of reality is possible; there can be no knowledge of anything .

https://www.britannica.com/biography/David-Hume
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
Mill's view of ethics was utilitarian and situational. I thought the quote you posted was making the case a moral reality is universal and objectively true. May be I read the quote wrong.
Click to expand...
Kant is moral absolutism and Mill is metaphysics that transcends culture. Consequentialism or karma is universal and something one brings upon oneself. We can see the consequences of an immoral government with BLM and 6.Jan; John Stuart Mill actually brought about reform of a corrupt system.
 
goat said:
Kant is moral absolutism and Mill is metaphysics that transcends culture. Consequentialism or karma is universal and something one brings upon oneself. We can see the consequences of an immoral government with BLM and 6.Jan; John Stuart Mill actually brought about reform of a corrupt system.
Click to expand...
That has been the debate for 200 years: categorical moral imperatives or utilitarianism.

I think you are correct that Mill was more effective at least in the broader realm of culture and politics. Social contract theory was right up his alley, and we can give him substantial credit for the evolution of modern western liberalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top