Good Essay On Which Is A Better Foundation For Morality?

Mills and Kant developed interesting arguments, which forms the basis of the concept of morality. The doctrine of utility proposed by Mills explores the idea of morality through referring to the consequences of the action, especially by establishing whether it brings happiness to the majority. On the other hand, Kant’s concept reviews the issue of morality in relation to the will or an action. Although both the doctrine of utility and categorical imperative are very authoritative, the utilitarian perspective provides a better foundation for morality. Mills theory offers a better foundation in the sense that it provides a more rational argument with greater explanatory power.
Mill develops the idea of morality by basing the moral value of an action with its ability to bring happiness to the mass. In particular, individuals who believe in this perspective mainly assume actions that favor the majority. This rational view as it acknowledges the vital role of the voice of the majority in defining what is morally right. Entrusting the majority group with the authority of defining norms and laws that should govern their welfare is an informed undertaking. Mills emphasizes that any human action is motivated by the desire to attain happiness (Mill 161). In essence, he successfully creates a rational and authoritative argument by utilizing a fundamental fact that humans desire happiness—meaning they will eventually act to realize it. Through this argument, Mills justifies the prudence of the utilitarian position because it is apparent that happiness then ought to be maximized for the majority. However, categorical imperative view challenges the presented Mill’s perspective by noting that often a person can choose not to act to realize the highest pleasure. This is supported by an example of a person who prefers to each a sandwich instead of studying despite the fact that reading a novel would eventually help him attain the highest pleasure. Mill responds to this challenge by acknowledging that in some cases, a person can opt for a lesser pleasure, but this does not essentially imply that human actions are controlled by preferential pleasures (Mill 162).
Mill’s view also gives a better foundation of the idea of morality because it develops a concept that is practical and applicable in the public policy realm. Some philosophers challenge this view by arguing that the majority right should not deny the minority the privilege of enjoying their right. However, most philosophers agree that the utilitarian view although not perfect, it provides a comparatively fair option in terms of public policy decisions. The utilitarian view may seem to infringe on the human rights especially in respect to the minority. Kant capitalizes on this fact by emphasizing that human rights assume the central position when thinking of the idea of morality. He argues that reasons and motives are important; unlike consequences, as the utilitarian view assume. Kant maintains that a good will can only be right in reference to its willing (Kant 223). Accordingly, any action can only be morally right or wrong in view of the “will” of the person who committed it despite the “will” of the majority. Kant’s argument is of great relevance especially when one thinks of the fate of the minority. However, in the public realm, a perspective that is aimed at serving the interest of the many appear more rational than the one that serves the interest of few individuals to the detriment of the many. In reference to the discussed facts, it becomes unchallengeable that the doctrine of utility provides a better foundation for morality than Kant’s concept. Mills and Kant developed interesting arguments, which forms the basis of the concept of morality. The doctrine of utility proposed by Mills explores the idea of morality through referring to the consequences of the action, especially by establishing whether it brings happiness to the majority. On the other hand, Kant’s concept reviews the issue of morality in relation to the will or an action. Although both the doctrine of utility and categorical imperative are very authoritative, the utilitarian perspective provides a better foundation for morality. Mills theory offers a better foundation in the sense that it provides a more rational argument with a greater explanatory power.
Mill develops the idea of morality by basing the moral value of an action with its ability of bringing happiness to the mass. In particular, individuals who believe in this perspective mainly assume actions that favor the majority. This rational view as it acknowledges the vital role of voice of the majority in defining what is morally right. Entrusting the majority group with the authority of defining norms and laws that should govern their welfare is an informed undertaking. Mills emphasizes that any human action is motivated by the desire to attain happiness (Mill 161). In essence, he successfully creates a rational and authoritative argument by utilizing a fundamental fact that humans desire happiness—meaning they will eventually act to realize it. Through this argument, Mills justifies the prudence of the utilitarian position, since is apparent that happiness then ought to be maximized for the majority. However, categorical imperative view challenges the presented Mill’s perspective by noting that often a person can choose not to act in order to realize the highest pleasure. This is supported by an example of a person who prefers to each a sandwich instead of studying despite the fact that reading a novel would eventually help him attain the highest pleasure. Mill responds to this challenge by acknowledging that in some cases, a person can opt for a lesser pleasure, but this does not essentially imply that human actions are controlled by preferential pleasures (Mill 162).
Mill’s view also gives a better foundation of the idea of morality because it develops a concept that is practical and applicable in the public policy realm. Some philosophers challenge this view by arguing that the majority right should not deny the minority the privilege of enjoying their right. However, most philosophers agree that the utilitarian view although not perfect, it provide a comparatively fair option in terms of public policy decisions. The utilitarian view may seem to infringe on the human rights especially in respect to the minority. Kant capitalizes on this fact by emphasizing that human rights assume the central position when thinking of the idea of morality. He argues that reasons and motives are import; unlike consequences, as the utilitarian view assume. Kant maintains that a good will can only be right in reference to its willing (Kant 223). Accordingly, any action can only be morally right or wrong in view of the “will” of the person who committed it despite the “will” of the majority. Kant’s argument is of great relevance especially when one thinks of the fate of the minority. However, in the public ream, a perspective that is aimed at serving the interest of the many appear more rational than the one that serves the interest of few individuals at the detriment of the many. In reference to the discussed facts, it becomes unchallengeable that doctrine of utility provides a better foundation of morality than Kant’s concept.

Works Cited

Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. New York. Ernst Cassirer Publications Fund. 2002. Print.
Mill, Stuart. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. 2005. Print.