J.S. Mill versus Immanuel Kant dilemma
There has been little notable progress so far in determining the controversy of judging the criterion of wrong and right. Among the facts presented about the present state of human knowledge, the controversy’s state is most indicative significant of the outdated state in which making theories of the relevant subject still lingers. So far, it proves how much little progress exists. Since the dawn of philosophy, the question of the “summum bonum", (the greatest good) concerning morality has caused its division into schools and sects warning against each other, and is recognized as the core problem in speculative thought. This paper presents a dilemma to be tackled concerning whether or not an individual should take a drug that would allow them to utilize 100% of their brain function, but kill them after 24 hours. This paper uses the Utilitarian and Kantian theory to decide on whether this is moral or negative action to take.
There is nothing that has proved to be impossible to think about anywhere in the world, or after all anything at all outside the world, that can be considered good without its limitations. The only exemption is a good will. Understanding the power of judgment, wit, and persistence in an intention, resoluteness and courage as temperament qualities are undoubtedly in some good respect beneficial and desirable.
However, they can prove to be extremely harmful and evil if the will behind the bearer has a peculiar constitution, and their character is not good. The same applies with gifts of fortune. Wealth, power, health, entire well-being, honor, and the contentment of one’s current condition in the name of happiness boosts one courage and thereby often call for arrogance. Whenever the individual is not willing to correct their own influence to their minds and make them universally beneficial and adorned with no traits of good will, the good will appear to bear the indispensable condition of the worthiness of their happiness.
Some qualities are conducive to goodwill and can simplify its work, but still have no inner worth despite this, yet always purpose to be good willed. This situation limits the esteem one rightly has for them and prevents them to be as good. Sober reflections, self-control are good aims, which constitute a big part of a person’s inner worth however; they lack much for them to be declared good despite limitations. Without the principles of good, human beings can be extremely evil and a villain’s cold -bloodlines makes him look by far more dangerous in our eyes than we would see them without it.
However according to Kant, something comes off strange in the idea of absolute value merely to the will in which its utility unaccounted. People may have misunderstood natures purpose in assigning reason as a governor to human beings will. As Kant examined the idea from another point of view, he realized that in the physical constitution of a being suitably adjusted to the meaning of life. All the actions, which people have to perform in the view of this purpose, would be far more prescribed to it by instinct and its end would have been achieved much more certainly, that it would be by reason. The individual fails to subject its desires to the delusive and weak guidance and interfere with nature’s purpose
Kant tells inclinations from duty. He believes that, the greater the duties difficulty, the greater its moral value. He further suggests that if a person has inclinations that base their actions on duty, they have reached a higher moral development. In respect to the laws that are designed to rule society, he proposes that it is not just enough only to obey the law. He states, “moral worth of the action is wholly due to their being conducted out of respect and fear for the law, therefore, the action is independent of motivation by natural purposes such as happiness and health. An example of this concept applies in obedience to the law to avoid punishment therefore; it is not moral or not smoking marijuana despite its successful medical effect simply because it is illegal.
An additional example of the Kant theory would apply if scientists discovered a drug that enhances a person’s brain capacity to 100%, but would die 48 hours later. According to Kant’s theory, every human being should be treated as an end to itself and never a means to an end. However, Kant seems likely to have supported the drug only if it the individual taking the drug is willing to do so in order to save humanity. He states, “It is man's duty and obligation to maintain one’s life. However, if sorrow and adversity have stripped the joy of life, if the unfortunate individual, indignant of his fate, strong in mind rather than dejected wishes for their death, and still lives life without loving it,- from duty, not from fear or inclination- then this maxim bears moral worth”. The same case applies in Jesus’ death on the cross. It is arguable that Jesus’ action was unselfish because he chose to die for human beings sins, the great of humankind and therefore a sacrifice for human’s sake.
Mill was a British philosopher and supported the utilitarian theory, also known as the greatest happy principle. This principle believes in the greater good for the greater number. Mill argues the need to find a clear defining principle for morality. He seems convinced that the actions consequences are what make them ultimately right or wrong.
In addition, the pursuit of happiness is an assumption held by the theory. The end that Mill talks of being worth to pursue is utility that includes the absence of pain and positive pleasure. Mill describes two classes of pleasure lower and higher. Lower represents bodily pleasure, and higher, intellectual pleasures. Mill agrees that the dignity is a form of higher pleasure. However, it is the pursuit of pleasure with the absence of pain that is essential to human beings. Should it not be the people’s right to decide when the pain outweighs the pleasure, therefore exhausting life’s purpose? Torr supports this by suggesting that it is life’s quality not the intrinsic sanctity of life that gives the basis of judgment.
The utilitarian theory is applicable for example to the ethics of euthanasia. It cannot be considered selfish to self-deliver a terminally ailing patient. The results will bring peace and happiness to the patient and to friends and family members who wished their loved one was not in such pain. Lower pleasure in this case presents itself through body pain with little relief. Once a person is terminally ill, they become less capable of seeking higher pleasures via intellectual pursuits. Their loss of life’s’ critical components that are essential to human existence make their desire to stay alive less worthwhile. People who question the act of euthanasia look for complete certainty that the patient does not have a viable future.
The utilitarian theory essentially relays the message that individuals should only act in a manner that shows respect to others, and never only as a means to accomplish your desires. How would a utilitarian view the issue of the drug, which, would help one, utilize 100% of their brain capacity but cause their death after 48 hours? On one hand, the drug would help humanity to explore an unknown world but on the other hand, the individuals who would take it would have to deprive themselves of life, in order to benefit the world. I believe a true utilitarian would meet the world’s needs halfway by doing what they can to benefit the world but remember to put their needs for life into consideration. If the drug would have the same benefits without ending their life, they should take it in order to promote humanity. In my opinion according to the utilitarian theory, any moral theory that requires an individual to suffer in order for others to benefit is useless in practice because people will not abide by the theory.
After the brief review of the two principles, this paper goes ahead to compare the two. One of the constant dilemmas facing contemporary philosophy for the ordinary person is the emphasis on a deontological theory or teleological theory of ethics. These two theories contradict each other. The deontological theory assigns its priorities on the obligation for people to live in a moral fashion while the teleological theory puts priority to the end of the action; therefore, it judges humans’ moral values. The teleological theory is concerned with society’s well-being and welfare while the latter focuses on a universal level without the end necessarily being a judgment factor.
Conclusion
Kant and mill have put great effort to define what actions make one morally worthy. Kant differs from utilitarian’s because he stresses that morality’s essence is to be found in the motive behind the action. Dissimilarity between the theories is that Kant argues that the human reason is incapable of leading people to happiness that humans often make bad choices. Kant does not believe that the consequences, results of an action do not determine whether they are wrong or right. Kant and mill closely align on the fact that human beings tend to make bad decisions.
According to the essay presented above, it is clear that Kant would allow the use of the drug that would enable one to use 100% of their brain, but kill them after 24 hours. The Kantian theory believes in using humans as a means to an end, and further implies that if a person will is to benefits others as well as themselves, then it would be right to take it. The theory justifies the consequences of the action according to their results. However, I value my life and like Mill, I believe my death would be a negative and not a moral outcome therefore I would not take the drug. The sacrifice would not be worth.
Works Cited
Eichhoefer, Gerald W. Enduring Issues in Philosophy: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1995. Print.
Popkin, Richard H, and Avrum Stroll. Philosophy Made Simple. Oxford: Made Simple, 1993. Print.
Torr, James D. Medical Ethics. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Print.
Vaughn, Lewis. Great Philosophical Arguments: An Introduction to Philosophy. New York: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.
