Similarities Between Mill And John Stuart Mill

Throughout the semester we studied three philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant. Each of these philosophers believed that there was an ultimate human good. Hobbes believed that power was the ultimate human good, while Mill believed it was happiness, or pleasure in life. Kant on the other hand believed human dignity was the ultimate human good. The two points of view I chose to compare and contrast are those of Mill and Kant. As previously mentioned Mill believed that the ultimate human good was producing happiness for the greatest number of people. The thing about this philosophy is that the distribution of happiness isn’t always equal or just. Kant’s belief however was that we have a duty to one another as human beings.
I agree with Kant’s philosophy the most because I do believe that we have a duty to one another as rational beings to ensure that we’re not being treated unjust. I believe that in order for us to have human dignity we must treat one another justly even when it produces no happiness. I agree with Kant when he argues that we shouldn’t treat others as objects for personal advantage or siding with them for fear of consequences. I believe that we all have a duty and that our duty should be done without us expecting any sort of reward or praise because of it. One shouldn’t just save a life because they want to be seen as a hero they should save a life because they see it as a responsibility they have to the other person as rational human beings. I also agree with him on the value of a person. He says that our value is above any price. This means that there is no price grated than our value as human beings. We’re worth more than any amount anyone can offer despite what we own, how much we’re paid, or how much power we
Throughout the chapter Mill provides examples of things that are universally considered just and unjust. He first explains how we consider it unjust to deprive someone of their legal rights. However, he argues that someone may have a legal right that isn’t necessarily just to others. One example would be slavery, people had the legal right to own slaves but that didn’t mean it was morally correct or just. Mill argues that laws can’t be the ultimate standard for justice when there exist laws that aren’t necessarily just. Mill goes on to explain that there are two components to justice, to punish someone who has done harm and to seek justice for the victim whose justice was violated. He argues that justice is the name we use when talking about some moral requirements that are at the top of the list when it comes to utility. Mill continues by saying “each person maintains that equality is the dedicate of being just except where he thinks expediency requires inequality.” (Mill 46) What he meant by this was that sometimes we have to treat people unjust in order to make things happen instantly, in this case to produce the greatest amount of happiness the fastest. Kant’s view on justice and whether it constitutes an obligation for us differs from Mill in various ways. He believed that we have an absolute duty one that is