The Long Standing Debate On Ethics - 1253 Words

The long-standing debate on ethics is far from being solved; however, two philosophers have formulated their own theories in determining whether an action is good or bad. John Stuart Mill focuses on a utilitarian perspective and utilizes the idea of consequentialism and on the other hand, Immanuel Kant avoids the consequentialist argument and supports a deontological perspective in analyzing morality and ethics. Both arguments, valid as they may be, strongly contradict one another, mostly on the basis that Kant and Mill look at very different parts of the equation. Both thinkers appeal to a sense of rationality in their reasoning to differentiate right from wrong; however while Mill’s consequentialist theories are valid under certain†¦show more content†¦He measures happiness in two ways, quantity and quality. Quantity in which how much pleasure there is and quality as how good the pleasure is. Of course, linking this principle back to morality as utility, when an act ion results in a widespread amount of happiness, this is a desirable end that promotes pleasure with the least amount of pain. Similarly to terms in economics, the Greatest Happiness Principle is essentially a cost-benefit analysis of the greatest benefit at the lowest cost. On the other hand, Kant utilizes a different approach as a base for measuring morality. In Kantian ethics, he believes that the supreme principle of morality is founded on the idea of the categorical imperative. In order to act with a good will, which is the highest good one can achieve, one must act in a way where the good is not a means to an end, but the good is an end in itself. In order for one to test whether or not the action is of good will, the maxim, or the personal rule according to which a person was acting, must be applied. Furthermore, these maxims are then tested by the categorical imperative; if the action can pass this categorical imperative, the rule can be made into universal law. By universal izing the law, Kant believes that this ascertains the rule as applicable to everyone at all times and in turn, is a perfect duty that