Comparing Kant And Mill's Utilitarianism

Two of the most well-known philosophers of ethics, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, possess distinct views on the founding principles of morality and justice. Kant contends that morality relies on autonomy and kindness, whereas Mill bases the theory on the ideal of happiness, or utility. This essay aims to clarify Kant's view of autonomy and goodness, compare it to Mill's utilitarianism, and analyze their divergent perspectives on drug legalization and decriminalization in the context of their respective ethical theories. The concept of acting out responsibilities rather than inclination or pleasure is at the very core of Kant's definition of goodness. According to Kant, goodwill is abiding by moral standards despite the repercussions since one acknowledges their inherent worth. On
This is seen in his support of the harm principle and individual liberty. On the legalization or decriminalization of drugs, Kant and Mill would probably disagree based on their different ethical systems. Kant would probably be against legalization because of the inherent risks that drugs bring to both people and society. He would contend that drug usage weakens people's capacity for reason and morality, which is a violation of the concept of autonomy. Furthermore, drug use may be seen by Kant as a kind of self-harm that goes against the need to maintain one's own rational nature. On the other hand, given the damage principle and the notion of individual liberty, Mill may be in favor of legalizing or decriminalizing drugs. He would contend that as long as decisions concerning one's own body do not hurt others, people should have the freedom to make them. Mill can argue that making drugs illegal violates people's right to privacy and increases harm by fostering a clandestine market and sustaining the violence linked to drug