Kant vs. Mill: Ethics, Happiness, and Moral Duty

Kant vs. Mill: Contrasting Ethical Frameworks

Kant’s moral philosophy emphasizes self-denial, sacrifice, and effort as the path to becoming worthy of happiness, not happiness itself. Mill, conversely, asserts that individuals have a right to happiness, and society should ensure the means for them to achieve their goals. For Kant, happiness is a reward for moral merit, something earned through the tenacious pursuit of virtue. He believed that the reconciliation of virtue and happiness, which constitute the supreme good, is only possible in an afterlife, as they are often opposing forces in this life.

Similarities and Criticisms of Kant and Mill

Interestingly, despite their different approaches, Mill and Kant arrive at some similar moral conclusions, and thus, face similar criticisms:

• Universal Moral Law: It’s difficult to defend Kant’s concept of a universal moral law applicable to everyone. Experience tends to contradict this notion. Similarly, J. Stuart Mill’s conception of human nature and historical progress is not easily demonstrable and lacks consistent empirical support.
• Transcendent Morality: Kant’s establishment of morality on a “transcendent” basis condemns it to the realm of the hypothetical. Mill, by suggesting that general happiness would be the universal aim if everyone were morally developed, also bases morality on something beyond empirical experience.
• Practical Application: Kantian morality, being formal and rational, lacks a hierarchy of values to resolve specific situations, making it universal and necessary, but unhelpful in resolving “real” moral conflicts. Mill’s utilitarianism, while acknowledging qualitative and quantitative differences in pleasures, makes the calculation and comparison of consequences extremely difficult in many cases, hindering the resolution of certain moral dilemmas.

Comparing Mill’s Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics

The core difference lies in their foundational principles:

1. Source of Moral Principles: Kant, like other rationalists, believed that the distinction between good and evil is inherent to practical reason. Mill, following Hume, argued that moral principles cannot be justified rationally but are instead grounded in human desires.
2. Moral Action and Motivation: Kant believed that only actions performed out of respect for the moral law, and not from desires or inclinations, are truly moral. The moral value of an action lies in the maxim (the principle guiding the action), not the outcome. An individual acts morally when motivated by respect for the moral law, not by the potential utility or satisfaction. Utilitarians, however, focus solely on the consequences. They argue that motives are invisible and immeasurable, while the consequences of actions are observable. This focus on consequences gives utilitarianism its alternative name: “consequentialism.”
3. Duty and Moral Rules: For Kant, obeying the moral law is an absolute duty, regardless of how troublesome or harmful the consequences might be. Mill advocates for following established moral rules (rule utilitarianism), but acknowledges that these rules are generalizations that can be broken in exceptional cases, as they are not absolutely binding principles. Unlike Kant’s deontological ethics, where the norm is unquestionable, Mill believes that while we should utilize the moral wisdom of humanity, we are not slaves to these norms. Exceptional circumstances may require alterations, improvements, or even setting aside certain rules based on utilitarian considerations.
4. Happiness and Human Desires: Mill believes that morality should be pragmatic, taking into account human happiness and fulfillment. Kant, in contrast, believed morality should be pure and transcend human desires.