A Comparison of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kants Ethical Theories :: Societal Order Universability

Comp atomic number 18 molar and Kants ethical theories which makes a better societal order? John Stuart Mill (1808-73) believed in an ethical theory cognize as utilitarianism. There are many formulation of this theory. One such(prenominal) is, Everyone should be active in such a way to bring the largest possibly balance of true over evil for everyone involved. However, good is a relation back term. What is good? Utilitarians disagreed on this subject. Mill made a distinction mingled with happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in impose on _or_ oppress of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill draw this principle as followsAccording to the Greatest Happiness Principle The last-ditch end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as doable from pain, and as rich a s possible enjoyments.Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas may be identified (1) The morality of an act may be laid by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A good man is one who considers the other mans pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own. Each persons happiness is equally important.Mill believed that a free act is non an undetermined act. It is determined by the unconstrained choice of the person perform the act. Either external or internal forces compel an unfree act. Mill also determined that every agency depends on how you address the situation and that you are only responsible for your feelings and actions. You decide how you feel about what you gauge you saw.Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had an interesting ethical system. It is based on a belief that the footing is the final authority for morality. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of trading dicta ted by reason, and no action performed for opportunism or solely in obedience to law or economic consumption can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the right reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code within of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.