Immanuel Kant claims that good will is good without any qualification, implying that good will is good regardless of the results of its action. He held that what makes a person good is his possession of the will that in a certain way makes decisions based on the moral law. J.S. Mill who is a utilitarian philosopher is quite opposed to this idea and focuses primarily on the consequences of an action to justify its moral uprightness. Mill holds persons, actions, and institutions need to be assessed based on how well they promote the human happiness. Mills approach to morality is superior to Kant’s theory. This can be demonstrated as follows;
Nature places man under two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. These two masters are the ultimate guiding principles of ones’ actions. This means that the good will that could be intended is suppressed by the two masters and hence guides the ultimate result which is the agents’ happiness. Therefore we cannot simply place judgments on what is moral or not based on the intentions of the agent. To do this, the results of the actions must be checked to determine actual intentions as manifested. It is therefore not possible to describe any person, whose will is good, as good, without considerations of the results of such intentions. This is because intentions are manifested by the actions they produce and may affect other people whose interpretation may be different.
However, the intention that guides an agent to perform an act can exclusively be determined, as been good or otherwise, without qualification. Kant in his Categorical Imperative, where “these imperatives are morally binding because they are based on reason, rather than contingent facts about an agent” (Driver, 2007 p. 83), hold that, “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (G 4:421) O'Neill (1975, 1989 and Rachels 1999, p. 124). This is because an action can be completely conceived and its results determined before it has actually taken place and hence be universally accepted. The question which emerges here is whether we can separate the intent and the results of such intents.
Mills’ theory is almost an impossible theory to use. This is because one has to predict about all the possible consequences of the actions and also the alternatives to such actions. This is practically impossible. The theory is also based on one direction, the results of the actions oblivious of the history that leads to such actions and consequently the results. However a theory can be correct even if it is unusable. The intention and action results cannot completely be possibly be separated! Mans’ actions are directed by his own interests (intents).
Mill on duty motivation holds ( Act Utilitarianism) that an act is right as long as its results for happiness are as good as any other existing alternative while rule Utilitarianism an act is good as long it conforms to rules which are accepted for happiness as great as any other existing alternative rule to the agent. Kant is opposed to this approach and indicates that dutiful actions do not express good will and the conformity of agents’ action to duty is related to the agents’ will by accident. Therefore if one is motivated by his own happiness alone, then, if conditions of his work did not conform to this, he would not have done his duty. We owe a duty to rationality by virtue of being rational agents; therefore, rational moral principles apply to all rational agents at all times (Johnson, Robert, 2008).
There is however a challenge on how the intentions and the results of such intentions can be completely in conformity. Intentions are entirely determined by the agents own consideration whereas the acts, though guided by the intentions may affect other parties whose independent intents and expectations guides the interpretation of the results of the actions of the intentions. Most actions may be guided by ethics which directs the duties, there is no anyone system of ethics that solely motivates actions as a feeling of duty, many of our actions are done as a result of other motives/intentions which are rightly done as long as duty does condemn them.
Based on the above, Mills theory is more superior to Kant’s theory on good will this is despite its persuasiveness. However, the two approaches at some point do complement each other and therefore can to some extent be said to be partly independent and partly interdependent.
Works Cited
Driver Julia. Ethics: The Fundamentals. BlackWell Publishing: London. 2007.
Johnson, Robert "Kant's Moral Philosophy", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008.
O'Neill, Onora, Acting on Principle. Columbia University Press: New York, NY. 1975
Rachels James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw Hill: New York, NY: 1999.
