Contrary to Mill, Kant believes that his theory better fits the Golden Rule. Why?

Compare and contrast

their views.

Kantianism and Mill's utilitarianism are both ethical philosophies that express an action's ethical
criterion. These two philosophies, however, adopt opposing ethical positions. As a result, Kantianism is
thought to be the polar opposite of utilitarianism. As a result, this essay examines the distinction
between Kantianism and Utilitarianism. Kantianism is a deontological moral theory, whereas
utilitarianism is a teleological moral theory. Deontological refers to Kant's ethical theory in his
Categorical Imperative, which comes from the Greek word Deon, which means duty. The Categorical
Imperative, Kant's improvement on the golden rule: Act the way you'd like everyone else to act toward
everyone else. As if it were a universal law, act according to the maxim that you would desire all other
logical individuals to follow. People, according to Kant, are fundamentally rational, and as a result, we
are conscious of the human predicament, both for ourselves and for others. On this foundation, we
recognize our responsibility as human beings to act rationally — and to act as we would desire all other
people to act. We call John Stuart Mill's ethical theory in his Utilitarianism teleological, from the Greek
Telos, which means purpose. It doesn't matter to Mill what our responsibility is or what we aim to do;
what counts is that we have considered all of the repercussions of our actions before acting. Mill's
philosophy evolved into current Consequentialism.

Between utilitarianism and Kantianism, there are few parallels. According to utilitarianism, an action is
right if it results in the maximum amount of happiness. As a result, utilitarianism considers any activity
that does not result in the greatest happiness to be wrong. For example, utilitarianism holds that killing
a mass murderer in order to save a group of people is the moral thing to do if it makes them happy.
However, Kant does not believe that the rightness of an action is determined by its consequences.
Acting on a maxim that one may consistently will as a universal law determines the rightness of an
action. This may sound like a mouthful, but Kant's argument is that if you want to do something but
aren't sure if it's okay, you should consider what the world would be like if everyone did it. If everyone
does the act, but it no longer makes sense or serves any purpose in that reality, the act is no longer
ethically legitimate.

Consider the following scenario. If you wanted to violate a commitment but weren't sure, you might
think to yourself, "What if I invented a moral code allowing anyone to break a promise?" There would be
no trust in a world where everyone broke their promises. However, breaking a promise presupposes
that there was a foundation of trust, to begin with. Nobody would believe you if you made a promise if
there was no trust, thus violating it would be pointless. As a result, a world where breaking promises is
acceptable would be absurd. These instances demonstrate Kant's categorical imperative, which states
that you are only authorized to act according to a universal law that you can. You can't operate on a
principle that says stealing and breaking promises are good since you can't make those values universal.
Willing them to be a universal law would result in a bizarre world where stealing and breaking promises
make no sense. A utilitarian will accept lying and stealing if they result in the best outcome for everyone.
Consider the story of Robin Hood. He robs the wealthy in order to distribute their possessions to the
needy. Robin Hood's actions brought joy to a large number of people at the expense of a small number
of affluent individuals. A utilitarian would declare that Robin Hood's actions are correct, but Kant would
argue that theft is wrong since it would be self-defeating if it were made a universal law.