Comparing Kant And Mill's Ethical Theory

Immanuel Kant’s perspective on morality is much different than John Stuart Mill. Unlike Mill, Kant believes that reason leads us to making moral decisions. We should use reason rather than “utility, religion, tradition, authority, happiness, desires, or institutions” (Vaughn 120). Rationality should always be used when we make decisions. Kant’s ethical theory states that “right actions have moral value only if they are done with a ‘good will’ -that is, a well to do your duty for duty’s sake” (Vaughn 121). This is one of the main differences between Kant and Mill’s ethical theory. Mill believes that our actions are deemed moral if they can bring about the most amount of happiness among society. Kant on the other hand believes that our actions
The first formulation states that an action is acceptable if “its maxim can be universalized” (122). Before we act we must think to ourselves whether there is a general standard found within our action. This is called the CI test. Imagine if a student wanted to ace his test, but didn’t want to put the time into study. The student then resorts to using his phone during the test. The first step is to create a maxim of the action, in our case the student is approving of the maxim of cheating. The next step is to the universalize the maxim. This means that everyone who wants to get a better grade on the test will has to cheat. The third step is to imagine a world where the maxim was universally followed by society and to ask yourself whether everyone could constantly act on the maxim of cheating. The answer to our situation is no because if everyone adopted this rule then everyone would be cheating on exams. That means teacher would know that all their students are cheating to get their grades. If everyone acted on this maxim, then it would as Vaughn says “defeat itself” (123). The maxim of cheating could not become a universal law, and thus is not morally acceptable. Forming a maxim can be difficult which makes it a weakness in Kant’s theory. Imagine if you are harboring someone from a killer in your house and the killer asks you where they are. Is the maxim that we are universalizing here
Both theories seem logical to me because they have a sense of structure. In Mill’s ethical theory your actions should bring about the greatest amount of happiness while Kant’s theory had a flowchart approach to it. This logical approach to interpreting the concept of morality in both theories is a strength because there are people out there like myself who can understand concepts if they are logical and have a sense of structure. This can also be a weakness because some individuals may see that as an attempt to restrict the interpretation or meaning of a concept. Another strength I found in both ethical theories is that they both promote equality. Mill’s ethical theory says that everyone counts as equal, while Kant’s ethical theory promotes equality of human