Growing up in a world filled with good and evil intention, we will always come across a simple yet complex decision making. Other decisions might differ from yours depending on the reasoning or insight of the desired outcome. Most people in society today either live on good or bad principles and choose for the anticipated consequence but I believe that everyone wants the best results with happy endings.
But from another standpoint, what ethics should we consider while making a decision? Everyone in this world will eventually have to make a choice, and that choice will be based on the individual’s ethical criteria. Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, both had different perspectives and criteria on ethics but they both shared that morality is always motivated or encouraged by something, but each of their principles differ specifically and quite opposite.
Both philosophers offer great ethical principles and criteria’s in our decision making in moral dilemmas, but I would agree with Immanuel Kant’s principle of deontology which is based on principles, intentions, and reasoning, and that morality should be considered as an individual’s top priority no matter what they are feeling now although, John Stuart Mill’s principle of utilitarianism and affecting the greater number of people is agreeable, understandable, and greatly considered.
127 our experts are availableright now
According to Immanuel Kant, he had a set of principles based moral and immoral acts and questions us on how can we distinguish right from wrong? He based his beliefs on principles such as ethics based on principles, respect for persons, and ideal society. He also thought about hypothetical, and categorical imperatives, rationality, desires that could potentially be bad, and that good human characteristics such as courage, temperance, knowledge, and friendliness can all be turned into evil. He believed that a hypothetical imperative was when someone performs an action based on the expectancy or
Kunewa 2attempt to achieve something outside of the act which was considered immoral to him. A categorical imperative was when an individual performs as action without the expectancy of something or with no conditions, which was considered moral to him. For example, if an individual makes an attempt to help a friend with homework and does so but expects money, pleasure, etc. This would be a hypothetical imperative which is immoral according to Kant but if the individual was trying to help a friend with homework with no expectancy and no conditions, then this is a categorical imperative which is considered moral according to Kant.
According to the great book of Immanuel Kant’s “Ground works of the metaphysics of morals” he states to “Live your life as though your every act became a universal law.” This basically tells people that whatever you decide to do, to do it in a moral way (ethics based on principle). This ethical criterion that Kant offers seems important, agreeable and persuades the audience to consider his principles to follow in moral decision making. John Stuart Mill had different terms to go by as he believed in utilitarianism and maximizing happiness (good) for the greater number of people.
Utilitarianism is the belief that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the number of good things. People who follow utilitarianism reject moral codes appealing to intentions, command-based ethics, taboo-based ethics, and appeals to religion. Mill believed that human beings are motivated by the pursuit of pleasure, or the avoidance of pain. His principles were also based off Intentions vs. consequences. In Mill’s “Utilitarianism (1863)” he states that “It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong” this states his moral belief that the quantity of people affected and the quality from which they benefited from the action, determines if it was right or wrong.
He also says, “Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends.” Which indicates the human desire/motivation of pleasure we want, and freedom of pain is the reason of how we perceive things, the reason we make our decisions, and what we base our principles off of. Mill believed that if an action creates more pleasure than pain, then it is morally good. But if an action creates more pain than pleasure, then it is morally bad. This causes the belief that lying is immoral in specific situations for example, people lie to not hurt the persons feelings and according to mill this is considered the right thing to do (moral) which I personally disagree with.
After thorough review of both philosopher’s beliefs for ethical decision making, I believe that both offer a criterion that have good intentions and they offer multiple principles to consider, and they both seem to be interested in liberty for individuals in society as that could but I would agree that we all should thrive to follow Immanuel Kant’s principles in morals when facing an ethical dilemma because it seems to outweigh the possibilities of better outcomes compared to John Stuart Mill although, he holds important rules as well. I would also disagree with John Stuart Mill’s morals of lying for example, lying to an individual to not hurt their feelings. I disagree with this theory because this may cause the person to feel more pain in the future.
If you were honest with them from the start, that could have prevented the negative outcome even though it might have hurt their feelings, but which consequence outweighs the other which is why I would argue that Immanuel Kant’s criteria for ethical decision making is what we all should follow. According to both philosophers, we should know that we’ve done the right thing if the outcome has increased happiness and pleasure to the greatest number of people without conditions or the expectancy of something outside the act, and we should perform these actions to the best of our ability no matter how we are feeling now. I also think that both philosophers are missing the bigger outcome in both of their beliefs. In Mill’s belief, I would change the thought of pleasure because pleasure does not last forever and the idea of lying causes pleasure.
From a different perspective according to this example, lying to not hurt an individual’s feelings seems as a good intention but if you lied about a person’s appearance, the next person may tell them the truth which could potentially cause pain to the individual appealing to their emotions in the long run. In Immanuel Kant’s principles, he believes that you should act as if your act became a universal law. Although, this may be true, he is still missing the bigger picture. Sometimes our acts may be evil, but the intentions are for the good which may contradict his principles. Altogether, the different rules, beliefs, and principles according to both philosopher’s may make it difficult to decide which to follow as both seems for the greater good
