Comparing Mill And Kant's Moral Theory

Throughout society there have been many philosophers who have argued whether good and evil are the same throughout society. Many have argued and debated if moral laws are universal. They’ve pondered if actions, motives, or consequences could be justifiable or not. Two such philosophers named Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant developed and proposed their own theories. Through various means each arrives at their own personal moral theories, for Bentham it’s his teleological moral theory answered through the use of the principle of utility and the hedonistic calculus (Bentham 126-132). As for Kant it would be his deontological theory that’s answered through the categorical imperative using the maxim to create a universal law (Kant
First let us start by explaining and expanding on Jeremy Bentham’s teleological theory. The teleological theory is a theory that’s concerned with consequences (lecture notes). Meaning it’s not concerned with the motives or actions that come before the consequences. Rather it’s simply the consequences itself the theory is concerned with. Along with this theory comes the principle of utility. This principle simply put is any action creating pleasure or pain for the individual or the community and in doing so must pertain to everyone (Bentham 128). Along with this principle comes the hedonistic calculus, a way to understand human emotion using seven steps. These steps are intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity, and the extent (Bentham 131). So, for example, if a country were to declare war and millions died the consequences would have a wide range of effects. We’ll start with using the principle of utility to determine whom it will affect and benefit. If an individual from a country declaring war decided this without the majority of the country then the benefit is possibly for only the individual
The deontological theory is one that is concerned with duty (Lecture Notes). Thus it’s concerned with what we should do and what we should avoid. If the will behind the duty is good in itself, that is that it’s unconditionally good, then the person with good will is in fact good. In order to determine whether the will is good and thus the person is good, one would use Kant’s categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is unconditional, meaning it is concerned only with the character of the willing and not any result beyond itself (Lecture Notes). For example where most would do y in order to achieve z the categorical imperative is only concerned with doing y and not what is the result from doing y (Lecture Notes). With this being said the categorical imperative is the moral law and all laws are universal. Thus a universal law is one that applies to all. Next we’d identify the maxim which is what you’re going to do and why (Lecture Notes). So in order for something or someone to be good one first identifies the maxim, then converts it into universal law and if the maxim does work as a universal law it’s a good maxim, and if not it’s a bad maxim. So for example if you were to say “I’m going to declare war because I will gain power” it’d seem like nothing is wrong with it. However if you convert it to a universal law and change the wording, is it still