Nicolas Raggi

9/30/2021

Introduction to Ethics

Instructor Name

Paper #1 Draft

Prompt 1

Ethics is a very broad idea and can be approached in a multitude of different ways

applying different types of ideals to different situations. John Stewart Mill was an English

philosopher who developed utilitarianism and the famous formulation of utilitarianism the

greatest happiness principle. Immanuel Kant is considered one of the most original and

profound philosophers who ever lived and based his ethics in morality like John Stewart Mill

did. The basis of both their beliefs on morality revolve around consequentialism and

utilitarianism with the difference really revolving around the rightness or wrongness of actions

themselves.

Consequentialism is the idea that the moral value or morality of an action depends on

the consequences of its outcome. Consequentialism states that an individual should only

choose the actions that maximize the good consequences. The greater the good consequences

an action produces the better that action is on all levels. Utilitarianism is a subcategory of the

broader Consequentialism and is the idea that the morally best action is the action that gives

the most overall happiness or utility. “First, utilitarian’s seek to maximize net expected benefits;
they care not only about how much good a course of action can be anticipated to produce, but

also about the costs of bringing that outcome.” (Shaw Page 318) Utilitarianism deals strictly

with happiness and the satisfaction of society, while holding happiness and usefulness at the

top and other crucial elements to life are not considered in the quantification of morality.

The relationship between utilitarianism and consequentialism is that utilitarianism is

considered a subcategory of consequentialism because it appeals to results to evaluate moral

value on ethical behavior. One main difference between consequentialism and utilitarianism is

that consequentialism does not specify a desired outcome it focuses on the consequences or

the results of an action while utilitarianism specifies good as the desired outcome. In the

utilitarian ethical system actions are morally evaluated solely by their consequences. For

example, taking a life would only be evaluated by the consequences, so taking a life that would

save countless more would be looked at as a viable moral solution because the number of lives

being saved outweighs the one life that would be taken. “..then commonsense morality might

well accept the explicitly utilitarian proposition that wars should be waged only when nothing

else would bring about greater well-being” (Shaw Page 308)

Mills supreme moral principle is called the greatest happiness principle, which states the

only good thing in and of itself is happiness. The ideal society would be one where everybody is

happy, and no one experiences pain. “Utilitarians wish to promote the well-being of a sentient

creatures as much as possible. For them, well-being is all that ultimately matters.: (Shaw Page

309) .
 The swinish pleasure objection is that if maximizing happiness and pleasure in life is the

only goal then we will just do things that make us happy and do what would be considered

swinish and gives immediate satisfaction with base pleasures. He believed that mental

pleasures are superior for humans that physical. As a result, utilitarianism is criticized at times,

“The first objection is that utilitarian reasoning is susceptible to abuse – in particular, that it can

be, and has been, used to justify all sorts of immoral wars.” (Shaw Page 309) In a utilitarian view

it can be said that the things that give satisfaction to “beasts” as Mill states do not give the

same amount of satisfaction to humans therefore degrading human life. Mill responds with his

point that there are different qualities of pleasures for humans compared to swine who only

value animal pleasures of life such as eating or intercourse. “The devious or deluded can twist

almost any moral principle into supporting morally objectionable policies.” (Shaw Page 309)

Immanuel Kant states Good Will is “good without qualification”. The good will is stated

as good in and of itself in any circumstances. “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world,

or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a Good Will.” (Kant

Page 146) Kant believes this is the only unqualified good because the Good Will is always and

will always be good under any circumstances and therefore cannot be qualified. For example,

someone fall into hard times or be unlucky which could stop them from achieving their goals,

but their goodness or good will would still exist.

Some things we call good such as, courage, intelligence, and wit can be called good in

some circumstances but if they are acted upon for the sake of duty. It is important to be able

to separate selfish acts verses acts done from duty. “A good will is one that acts for the sake of

duty” (Kant Page 147). Someone can follow a rule out of a sense of duty but the reason they
follow the rule can also be selfish in that they do not want to get in trouble. “An act done from

duty derives its moral value not from the results it produces but from the principle by which it is

determined.” (Kant page 148)

Immanuel Kant’s supreme moral principle is called the categorical imperative. Kant’s

argument about the only unqualified good, which is the Good Will, relates to his supreme moral

principle the categorical imperative by using the three formulations of the categorical

imperative to act in accordance with the Good Will. “Rational beings to the extent that they act

rationally, will always be guided by ethical principles or maxims that can be adopted by

everyone else without generating any contradiction.” (Kant page 149). The two different kinds

of duties Immanuel Kant identifies are perfect duties and imperfect duties. Perfect duties are

duties that require a person to perform a certain action all the time while imperfect duties only

require a person to perform that action sometimes.

Kant uses the first version of his supreme moral principle to distinguish between the

two different types of different duties by stating in the first version of his categorical imperative

that you should act only in accordance that ethical decisions be universalizable. This

differentiates the two forms of duties because Kant’s classification of perfect duties states that

those are duties that one should do all the time every time, universalizing those actions. Kant

said, “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a Universal Law of Nature.”

(Kant Page 151) This also classifies imperfect duties because those are duties that are not done

by everyone every time, not universalizing those duties. Kant uses the second version of his

supreme moral principle to talk about how to treat other by stating that if someone is of use to

you, you should not use them as a means to an end and never just as the means. This requires
you to not use people as instruments or tools and they cannot be things you employ to get

what you want. An example of a moral action that and how one version of Kant’s categorical

imperative would evaluate that action would be to only become friends with someone because

that friendship could give you access to more beneficial opportunities and not because you

genuinely like that person. For example, befriending someone to be invited to on a trip or to an

event that you would not normally have access to when in fact you find that person annoying

or just not a good person. Kant’s second formulation of his categorical imperative would

evaluate this as wrong and does not follow the basis of this version because being friends with

someone only to benefit yourself would be considered using that person as just a means and

not a means to an end. “Some actions are of such a character that their maxim cannot without

contradiction be even conceived as a universal law of nature, far from it being possible that we

should will that it should be so.” (Kant page 152)

An ethical approach that John Stewart Mill and Immanuel Kant share is that both

philosophers want to maximize good in a sense for the most amount of people possible. Their

two theories are similar in this way because Kant’s categorical imperative states that what I

want for myself I must also want for the other and Mills utilitarianism view states that we must

maximize good consequences for the most amount of people possible as well as minimizing bad

consequences for the most amount of people as well. These two philosophers’ approaches are

different because Kantianism states that the basic motivation for conforming to morality is the

respect for one’s own autonomy but Mill and his utilitarianism basic motivation for conforming

to morality is the desire to be in harmony with one’s fellow human beings. An original example

of a moral action that Mill and Kant would disagree on would be lying. Kant and Mill would
disagree on someone lying to protect someone. Kant believes lying does not derive from good

intention even though you would be lying in good intention. Mill would say that lying to protect

someone else would be a viable action because the consequences of lying would benefit the

person you are lying to in order to protect them from something that is not good.