Chicago Public Schools Philosophy Mill vs Kant Essay

I need an essay about Kant VS Mill. I will attach some documents regarding it and you can use online resources. Please site in MLA format. essay needs to be 5 pages. Instructions on the essay are atttached.

Oakton Community College
Spring 2021
BUS/PHL 107
ESSAY
Write a five-page essay on the following topic:
General Theme: Kant vs. Mill
Examine Kant’s notions of the Good Will and Duty. What role should emotion play in
moral decision making, according to Kant? Define his Categorical Imperative. Then,
contrast this with J.S. Mill’s overall position on ethics. What do you think is Mill’s
essential difference from Kant? Finally, consider their respective impacts on policy
during the COVID-19 crisis: How would their recommendations differ? Do you prefer
one approach over the other?
Three needful things:
Please provide a comprehensive introduction to your essay, indicating its overall scope
and direction.
Back up your summary of the material with at least four citations from our Ethics text (at
least one on Mill), using a standard referencing system (APA or MLA) for your citations.
Essays not following these directives will be returned for revision.
Essays are to be presented in double-spaced 12-point New Times Roman with standard
margins. Essays are due no later than Tuesday April 27th. Please email responses by
D2L.
Penalty for late submissions: Unless you present documentation of an emergency
regarding you, your spouse or child, one point will be subtracted for each day the essay is
late.
KANT’S ETHICS
CONT’D
As we’ve seen, Kant (in line with Enlightenment) places the highest emphasis on what unites us in
common, which he believes is Rationality. And here we come to the key conundrum in his thought: Kant
claims that we differ in Intelligence but are equally Rational: How is this possible? His answer isn’t
terribly clear, but I think good sense can be made of it. What Kant means by Rationality is the capacity to
formulate and modify a life plan. This is what really does separate us from non-humans, and is arguably
the fundamental source of human dignity.
Thus, Kant’s Ideal Society (the “Realm of Ends”) would feature the mutual recognition of one another’s
capacity for formulating and modifying life-long projects. Now, imagine a World in which we conceive
of one another as such, as a “work in progress,” and not as the Representative of some ideology that you
happen to dislike? In other words, Judge Not (though critical engagement with the other remains fair
game.) Thus, the great value of Kant’s ethics is to promote the Foundation of a Civil Society. The
Categorical Imperative, which Kant claims is the real teaching of Christ in the Gospels, puts a break on
our inner reptile, whose expressions are so fostered by our popular culture.
Kant shared the deep Enlightenment perception that gradual progress in promoting its values would
spread throughout the world. This belief was supported by 18th Century natural history, which envisioned
a very different world than the one described by Darwin. Because he believed in a “tweak this, tweak
that” approach to political change, Kant’s politics, supported by his view of Time, were quite
conservative. All of this changes in the next century…
INTRO TO THE POST-KANTIAN 19TH CENTURY
The 19th Century ushered in Romanticism, and featured four coordinated changes in European culture:
First is the change in our understanding of unconscious mental functioning. Kant thought that automatic
mental processes were rational and common to all people: now they began to be seen as non-rational and
unique to each individual. Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams (1900) stands at the end of a long process,
with increased fascination with dreams, psychopathology, and paranormal phenomena.
Second, artistic creativity takes on an enhanced importance. Art largely replaces rational inquiry as the
essential human activity, as it conjoins reason with the non-rational. Artists such as Beethoven become
supreme cultural figures.
Third is the rediscovery of nature and the dawning of ecological consciousness. 18th Century culture was
very urbane, and there is a cute story about a wig-pated artist riding through the alps in a carriage, pulling
the curtains down so he did not have to look at the “irrational” and jagged mountains. The same figure a
century later, with long natural locks, gazes out and is inspired to create.
Lastly, there is nationalism in various forms. As we saw, the Enlightenment emphasized our
commonalities. Now, we see various cultures concerned with returning to their “roots.” Composers often
turn to regional folk material for inspiration. Politically, differences are emphasized, which later lead to
some quite virulent forms, such as Nazism.
J.S. MILL (1806-1873): BIO
The epicenter of Romanticism was in central Europe, yet impacts all of it. Mill is also, in some sense, a
child of Enlightenment (heir to Hume) as well. Four key features of his life stand out:
John Stuart Mill was the son of James Mill, a prominent economist and architect of classical capitalism.
He also had “interesting” ideas about education, derived from the psychology of John Locke, who thought
the mind was a tabula rasa, a blank slate that would take on whatever is “impressed” upon it. J.S. was
home-schooled and had tons of information crammed into his head. Result: a complete mental
breakdown, from which he eventually recovered.
Mill was mentored by Jeremy Bentham, who invented the hideous word “utilitarianism.” As we’ll see
next time, he attempts to reinvent it, and Aristotle will be a seminal influence.
Third, Mill became quite active in politics. We’ll examine his inner conflicts regarding socialism, and he
also an essential figure in the women’s suffrage movement.
Last, and relatedly, Mill had a long romance with a married woman, Harriet Taylor, whom he later
married after her husband died. Together they authored The Subjection of Women, an essential work in the
feminist movement.
MILL’S UTILITARIANISM
Before moving on to the text, three items of note:
First, as I mentioned, Mill is trying to rehabilitate this notion, which was first pioneered by Jeremy
Bentham, his mentor. Bentham’s version features the infamous “Hedonistic Calculus,” in which
numerical values can be assigned to pleasures, with a decided emphasis on physical pleasures. Mill’s key
revision features a qualitative account of pleasure. (Ethics Chapter 11 is an article of Bentham’s, and it is
unintentionally hilarious.)
Second, in relation to Kant, we have the classic contrast between the “deontological” ethic of Kant, which
focuses on principle and purity of intent, with Mill’s consequentialist approach.
Third, Mill is famous for the other of his “Twin Towers,” On Liberty, which is a classic defense of the
benefits of freedom of expression, and for his “no-harm principle,” which limits this freedom by
prohibiting direct physical harm to others. As we’ll see, the two works are meant to dovetail with one
another
THE RELEVANCE OF ARISTOTLE
While not good physics, Aristotle’s theory of action is helpful in understanding the pursuit of a life-plan:
our actions are to be evaluated in terms of the fulfillment of the plan. We will also see this idea applied to
the historical process itself: that human history itself has a (perhaps implicit) “plan” (or ideal)—an
important phenomenon in the run-up to Marx.
Also very helpful is Aristotle’s account of the virtues as a “fine-tuning” of our personalities. In some
ways, this bears resemblance to the “Middle Path” ethos in Buddhism.
Yet, in terms of Business Ethics, probably the most important consideration derives from Aristotle’s
belief that if we are denied leisure to contemplate, we do not realize our essential natures. And his noting
that this opportunity depends on forces that no private individual can control remains quite relevant. Thus,
for our purposes, the extent to which a business entity, or even our economic system, promotes
“contemplation” (however you wish to define it) is of great significance in an ethical “audit.”
Finally, it is worth glossing on an interesting (and somewhat esoteric) theme discussed in Book X. We
already know that in contemplating things, we actualize our own nature: but Aristotle goes further and
claims that we are actualizing the things’ nature too. This is not the way we generally think of it: The
World is “there” whether we know it (or like it) or not. But Aristotle claims that the world is here for our
contemplation. His belief is often understood in terms of the old “tree in the forest” question: For
Aristotle, it is claimed, the tree did not fall if it was not heard. Personally, I do not find this example
helpful: It is more like the Earth being a piece of music: If there’s no-one to listen, then it’s not Real.
KANT (1724-1804) CONTEXT: MODERNITY AND ENLIGHTENMENT
We now take a huge leap forward in time, from Antiquity to Modernity. As we will see, the world of Kant
breathes a quite different atmosphere from Kant, much more like our own. Of course, what lies between
these two figures is a whole lotta Christianity, and the various ways in which Christianity has been
understood—and attacked—will inevitably be a topic of concern moving forward…
If I could encapsulate the change to modernity in a single image, it is as if the human gaze is redirected
from the vertical plane to the horizontal: Instead of gazing up at “Heaven” or downward to Purgatory or
Hell, we now look into the Horizon. With the Voyages of Discovery (and the beginnings of Colonialism),
the overall loosening of the bonds between the Church and individuals, and (crucially) greatly increased
economic activity, the World is becoming more “Worldly.”
The Enlightenment is centered in the 18th Century. Also known as “The Age of Reason,” there is a
general emphasis (although there are exceptions) upon those qualities that make us equal as human beings
(our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are quintessentially Enlightenment documents), and
the general mood is one of optimism in the inevitable progress of science and technology, and in our
political institutions.
Kant himself is the last, and perhaps the finest fruit of Enlightenment. He lived in the far northern part of
the German speaking world which was known for two key qualities: Pietism (a strong version of
Lutheranism) and for its Business Ethics. Kant saw the consistency of a daily routine to be a beautiful
thing, and the housewives in his neighborhood could set their clocks to the exact moment he walked by in
his afternoon “constitutional.” (Pardon the Pun!)
KANT’S “FOUNDATIONS”: TEXT AND COMMENTARY
Kant begins (184) with celebrating the infinite worth of Good Will. The Good Will is an underlying
disposition of the personality, and is something that you can give to yourself (“autonomy”). As we’ll see
it is not founded on variable emotions, but from a more constant source: Reason. A person who acts
according to Good Will is benevolent (which means “good will”), and is something fundamentally
different from sympathy. Kant is not a “critic” of sympathy; rather it is a safety net, when one is “not
feeling it.” As opposed to “talents of the mind” (such as intelligence), virtues (such as courage), and
various gifts, which all can be used for nefarious purposes, the Good Will “shines like a Jewel in the
Darkness of the World.”
Kant develops an intriguing argument about the role of Reason in establishing a Good Will. On 185-6, he
disqualifies two traditional options for the role of Reason: First, he claims that when it comes to securing
our needs, Instinct is more reliable than Reason. Second, and Kant has Aristotle in mind, the exercise of
Reason does not necessarily bring happiness or pleasure. He assumes that we have Reason “for some
reason,” and preliminarily claims that Reason is a “practical faculty, meant to have an impact on our
will.” In other words, it can determine our Duties.
A Duty is something you do “whether you feel like it or not”; or more deeply, something that is done
regardless of circumstances and regardless of consequences. (Kant is the ultimate “it’s the principle of the
thing” philosopher.) He forges the connection between Reason and Duty by observing that both are
concerned with establishing Laws. And our duties are what issues forth from Good Will.
Now that some of the pieces of the puzzle are on the table (Kant rewards patience!), he turns (187) to a
famous example of what we generally consider to be morally paradigmatic, and asks what the deep
structure of this phenomenon is. He takes the example of a gifted doctor who is suffering from
depression, and is contemplating suicide. The doctor decides to pull herself/himself together and move on
with the work. So, what’s really going on here? First, Kant is claiming that such a move really is possible,
and this means that we really are free. This is crucial theme throughout the text (see especially 191): It is
an essential characteristic of personhood that we can step outside the causal sequence of events, see them
from without. Only humans have an idea (or concept) of what a Law is.
Now Kant asks the crucial question regarding what is going on in the mind of the noble doctor. And here
we come to our first approach to the Categorical Imperative. The doctor steps outside the immediate,
private situation of depression, and sees oneself as a representative of humanity, asking whether “I will
what I am contemplating right now (suicide), as a Universal Law?”
Answer: “No.”
O.K. we now have a foothold in the text. Kant requires time, and we’ll look deeper next time.
Oakton Community College
Spring 2021
BUS/PHL 107
ESSAY
Write a five-page essay on the following topic:
General Theme: Kant vs. Mill
Examine Kant’s notions of the Good Will and Duty. What role should emotion play in
moral decision making, according to Kant? Define his Categorical Imperative. Then,
contrast this with J.S. Mill’s overall position on ethics. What do you think is Mill’s
essential difference from Kant? Finally, consider their respective impacts on policy
during the COVID-19 crisis: How would their recommendations differ? Do you prefer
one approach over the other?
Three needful things:
Please provide a comprehensive introduction to your essay, indicating its overall scope
and direction.
Back up your summary of the material with at least four citations from our Ethics text (at
least one on Mill), using a standard referencing system (APA or MLA) for your citations.
Essays not following these directives will be returned for revision.
Essays are to be presented in double-spaced 12-point New Times Roman with standard
margins. Essays are due no later than Tuesday April 27th. Please email responses by
D2L.
Penalty for late submissions: Unless you present documentation of an emergency
regarding you, your spouse or child, one point will be subtracted for each day the essay is
late.
MILL’S UTILITARIANISM, CONT’D,
Text with Commentary:
On 221, Mill makes two major claims. Those who are acquainted with both physical and intellectual
pleasures prefer the latter. Comment: One can only hope. And is it so easy to distinguish between them?
Imagine a hard fought and successfully consummated romance: Physical or non-Physical?
He also claims that the more your higher capacities are developed, the more capable you are of suffering.
On 222, Mil claims that it is better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool. Comment: What
about a million satisfied fools? He then goes on to say that a dissatisfied Socrates is more valuable since
he understands the many sides to an argument. Here is one point where there’s confluence with On
Liberty: In order to access these various sides, freedom of expression is essential.
Later on the page, Mill says that the higher sensibilities are a delicate plant, easily killed by a lack of
education and unfulfilling work. (Sound familiar?)
Two key points about the remainder of Chapter II: First, he claims (reasonably enough) that the “greatest
happiness principle” is compatible with self-sacrifice (after all, why would one otherwise sacrifice
oneself?) He makes an oblique reference to Christ’s self-sacrifice, and then goes on (227) to claim that the
best way of understanding Christ’s ethic is through the doctrine of utility. Comment: This does not at all
appear to be Christ’s ethic. To act in such a way implies that many (including the Elect) might be left
behind. Kant’s Categorical Imperative seems to be much more in-line with His teaching.
Finally, Mill claims (228) that the doctrine of utility is also compatible with acting self-interestedly. He
claims that we act in this manner most of the time and this is (somehow) compatible with the greatest
happiness of all. This sounds a lot like the “hidden hand” concept in capitalist economics. Mill then gives
the infamous example of the rescuing of a drowning man: what matters most is the outcome (the man is
saved), and not the motive of rescuer (he might well expect to be compensated). Comment: I find this to
be a very, very bad argument. Imagine you have rescued Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon). He is grateful but
assumes you have recognized him and expect to be handsomely compensated. But you didn’t and acted
out the kindness of your heart. What a transformative moment when he realizes this! The purity of your
intent does matter, and can have enormous consequences. C’mon Mill…
Chapter Five of this work attempts to show how the principle of Utility is most in-line with our most
commonly held beliefs about Justice. More specifically, and in a manner virtually identical with Hume’s,
Mill says (238-9) that the ideal just system would harmonize our often-conflicting impulses of sympathy
and self-protection. Unlike Hume’s agnosticism on this matter, Mill says that his “greatest happiness”
principle is optimally suited to be the guide in framing codes of Justice. Comment: A powerful point.
Mill’s often expressed optimism (which often sounds Enlightenment) is powerfully stated toward the end
of the reading (242). Mill, who had sympathies with some versions of socialism (stay tuned), often took
the side of Worker’s Rights in his parliamentary votes. Yet, he was conflicted. His no-harm principle
mandated his opposition against violent protest, even when the relevant capitalists were clearly
intransigent. And he went as far as supporting a Measure giving multiple votes to the propertied classes,
thus subverting democracy. In this way, Mill embodies inherent conflicts within Liberalism.
One final comment: “What’s the Timeframe, John? Is it the Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number
of this Generation, or how many more, moving forward? What if the future happiness requires intense
present sacrifice?” Mill’s thought is ill-equipped to answer this concern.
REFLECTION: ARISTOTLE, KANT, AND MILL
Each of these thinkers provide a unique and valuable perspective, both regarding our own ethical Ideals,
and can be employed to evaluate various political and socio-economic entities.
In addition to his virtue ethics, Aristotle is invaluable in his insistence that human flourishing requires that
we exercise those qualities that make us distinctively human: our contemplative and political natures.
Kant provides the finest basis for our rules of civil engagement, and as we will see, Kant’s Categorical
Imperative is a major motivator for Marx.
Finally, despite all its evident flaws, Mill’s hierarchy of pleasures and Greatest Happiness principle as a
general directive for society still carry a lot of weight.
A solid personal ethical theory might well contain elements from all three theories.
BACKGROUND TO THE MANIFESTO
Hegel’s Theory of History: G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1832) is the most prominent German philosopher
between Kant and Nietzsche. While not a Socialist he laid a vision of history and of human interaction
that influenced much European thought, including Marx.
Unlike Kant, who thought and believed in gradual historical progress, Hegel presents a “catastrophist”
model, in which occasional revolutions were essential to historical development. As with the
Enlightenment, paradigms in natural science are used as models for historical change. As Nietzsche
would later say, “Without Hegel there would be no Darwin.”
Metaphorically, history is structured like a Beethoven symphony. (They’re born in the same year, so this
is Hegel 250, too). Motif fights it out with contrasting motif, leading to a new motif, which itself becomes
the source of contrasting one, and so on. Like Beethoven, these conflicts are resolved at the end. Both are
strong believers in redemption.
Other features: Cultures fail due to irreconcilable internal conflicts, often because they either overvalue
individuality or, on the other hand, the collective and, ironically, unjust regimes generate the very forces
that will destroy them. (Huge for Marx). Finally, Hegel imagines a state of extreme polarization before
the final synthesis: “The Night is Darkest just before Dawn.”
While the specifics of Hegel’s just society are complex, it bears resemblance to Plato’s Aristocracy.
Hegel’s Master/Slave Dialectic: In his Phenomenology of Spirit, he engages in a thought experiment
about the development of human consciousness. In this hypothetical, two persons confront one another
striving for much-needed recognition. What is suggested here is that we only come to a sense of Self
through recognition by Others: an essential precept of social psychology.
Continuing the story, one individual emerges victorious and subjugates the other, turning the individual
into a Slave. The Slave not only suffers the loss of recognition, and hence humanity, but also the
humiliation of having the products of her/his labor stripped of the Slave’s ownership.
What is suggested here is that, in addition to recognition, we come to understandings of ourselves through
our transformation of the world, that is, through Work.
These two features in tandem—recognition and work—are the essential lens through which Marx will
understand the plight of the Proletariat. And by the way, matters aren’t so great for the Master, either. In
demoting the Slave to an instrument, the Master is ironically deprived of recognition. And since the
Master doesn’t work, he lives an “ungrounded” life, with its attendant psychopathologies.
Marx and Hegel agree: An ideal society is one which features mutual recognition of our Personhood, and
where we feel that our objects of creation truly “belong” to us.
Marx’s “1844 Manuscripts”: One of the most noteworthy discoveries of the 20th Century was that of a
series of papers he wrote (and left unpublished) in Paris during the early years of Socialist uprising. Marx
was 25, and fresh off studies of Philosophy. Excerpts are included in Ethics Chapter 14, and I encourage
you to read Engels’ touching eulogy to Marx, cited at the beginning of the chapter.
Four key points of this selection stand out: First, Marx emphasizes the ongoing and worsening nature of
the sense of self-impoverishment, as workers submit the products of their hard work to their Masters.
Second, in a manner that engages both Aristotle and Kant, Marx speaks (264) of our “species being,” in
which we recognize ourselves as a “universal and consequently free being.” He is saying here that we are
unique since we are capable of recognizing ourselves as members of a species, and not just particular
beings within a causal order, we have a unique dignity.
Another aspect of our humanity is our sense of beauty (265). Marx claims that we do not create simply to
satisfy material needs (surprise!) but bring standards of taste to our creations. Here he implies that in
order to create in this manner, we need to have a sense of ownership, which is ruled out under Capitalism.
Finally, capitalism blunts our very senses: “Private property (that is, privately held capital) has made us so
stupid…that all our physical and intellectual senses have been alienated and replaced by the mere sense of
having.” (267-8)
Thus, Marx meets Romanticism. Keep this in mind as we move forward…