Kant VS Mill

Immanuel Kant was born in April 1724 to a craftsman named Johann George Kant and Anna Regina Porter (Bennagen, 2000). He was trained more in Latin and Religion subjects as comp ard with recognition and mathematics consequently forming his concepts and ideas with regards to incorrupt philosophy technic whollyy referred to as deontology which rattling reiterates that an turn should provided be carried unwrap based on the an individuals responsibilities (Bennagen, 2000).John Stuart powderJohn Stuart powder was born in May 1906 to Harriet Barrow and a swell know philosopher, James footle (Bennagen, 2000). Being exposed to Greek when he was only three years old, Latin when he was eight, he was extremely brilliant, so intelligent that he acquired Greek Literature, Philosophy, Chemistry, Botany, Psychology and faithfulness before he turned eighteen years old (Bennagen, 2000).Furthermore, he is accountable for systematically putting together the utilitarian thoughts/concepts/idea s of his father and his fathers jockstrap Jeremy Bentham (Bennagen, 2000). This is where Jeremy Bentham argues and reiterates that biteions ar correct only if they be inclined to bring into be the ut approximately gratification for the greatest number of people (Bennagen, 2000). This is simply because advocates of utilitarianism trust that recreation is the main criteria for doing something skillful or wrong, meaning if something is done and cheer resulted from it past it is right, however, if pain was brought about from it past surely, it is wrong (Bennagen, 2000).Major Similarities in their respectable SystemImmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill ethical systems have similarities and these are the followingIn act utilitarianism, laws are not taken into accountation as farsighted as the act is utter to have brought about pleasure to most individuals then it is right (Bennagen, 2000). The same is true with deontology wherein concern is the basis for a right act which means that even if it means feeding the law unsloped as long as the responsibility is fulfilled then the act is definitely right (Bennagen, 2000).In addition, both cannot always be utilized as a guide to morals (Bennagen, 2000). There are several cases where a decision made based on utilitarianism or deontology fails (Bennagen, 2000).Major Differences in their Ethical SystemThere are differences between the ethical systems of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill and some of these are the followingIn foothold of inclination, Immanuel Kants deontological openings goal is to fulfill a definite duty, whereas, John Stuart Mills utilitarianisms goal is to achieve happiness (Bennagen, 2000). This is clearly diaphanous in the definition of the deontological theory which says that individuals ought to stick to their responsibilities in evaluating a moral quandary (Bennagen, 2000). Same is true with the technical definition of utilitarianism where it states that, in an assessment of an ethical issue, the alternative that impart result in the greatest happiness to the most number of people is the option that is ethically right (Bennagen, 2000).Also, ob sue utilitarianism considers the law and fairness in finally do an act which is said to be right (Bennagen, 2000). Here, an individual who is about to make an act disadvantageously thinks about making the most number of individuals experience pleasure done with(predicate) fair and just means (Bennagen, 2000). Furthermore, it gives importance to justice, as well as, munificence (Bennagen, 2000). By justice here, we mean, that everyone involved in the situation are interact fairly, on the another(prenominal) hand, by beneficence, we mean, doing what is good, in opposition to what is evil (Bennagen, 2000). The same defies deontology in such a way that it does not involve justice and beneficence in it, rather it only focuses on fulfilling the duty, whether or not it is fair or just to everybody involved (Benn agen, 2000).Major Criticisms for Kants TheoryThere are also criticisms for Kants Theory and some of these are the following archetypal of all, since deontology is all about sticking to responsibilities, its rationale or logic is organism questioned for it (Bennagen, 2000). For instance, how will individual duties would be defined (Bennagen, 2000)? If for example, if personally I consider my family as my first priority every time and it so happened that I am be called by my supervisor for an urgent or unavoidableness come across, would it be considered not doing my duty if I go to this emergency meeting that my supervisor has ordered (Bennagen, 2000). Another example is the fact that, citizens have to nurture a certain driving speed, however, an individual is running late for a cast asideing exam in medicine, which is a make or break exam for him, would it be considered as not doing his duty if he went a little speedy just to make it to his exam, which is a personal duty for him in the first place. Very clearly, through the aforementioned examples, there are no limits or boundaries to this so called duty making it critical, even questionable, as an ethical theory (Bennagen, 2000).Secondly, obviously it is not extremely useful or helpful in making decisions since it is not applicable in all situations, as seen in the examples above (Bennagen, 2000).Last but not least, it is also universe criticized because of its self-centeredness simply because it does not really consider the well-being of others (Bennagen, 2000). issue back to the aforementioned examples, it shows that deontology tends to take a certain side wherein the other side not chosen is left unprotected in terms of its welfare (Bennagen, 2000).Major Criticisms for Mills TheoryThe criticisms for utilitarianism include the followingFirst of all, in making a decision using the utilitarianism, it does not always achieve its goal of the experience of the utmost number of people of the greatest pleasu re (Bennagen, 2000). If the spike of the family decide to unleash his dog in his yard at wickedness to make sure that no one will jump everywhere his fence and to make sure untoward incidences in his home are avoided which may consequently hurt his family, but unfortunately the dog got out of his yard and went over the neighbors yard and destroyed the flowers in the garden (Bennagen, 2000)? This means that instead of his family being happy being they were well guarded, other people were terribly disappointed, disturbed, and definitely did not experience happiness as should be the outcome of utilizing utilitarianism as a technique in making ethical decisions (Bennagen, 2000).Secondly, many people criticize utilitarianism for its inadequacy of jet sense (Bennagen, 2000). For example, would you give up the one you really love just because your surmount friend loves him too and for the reason that your family does not like him for you (Bennagen, 2000)? Your best friend will turn out happy and so will your family which complies with the technical definition of utilitarianism involving utmost happiness experienced by the greatest number of individuals (Bennagen, 2000). The questions however are what about you, where is the common sense in that, and is selflessness common sense (Bennagen, 2000)?Thirdly, happiness is undefined here in utilitarianism (Bennagen, 2000). For example, a customer service representative at a certain company has been reported to be sleeping on the job (Bennagen, 2000). Utilizing utilitarianism, the act has been carried out 1) to correct the mistake of the customer service representative 2) to serve better more consumers and 3) to improve the companys services and be appreciated by more clients (Bennagen, 2000). This may result in happiness for the consumers and the management however typically, this will not bring in pleasure to the customer service representative being complained about (Bennagen, 2006). This only proves that an act may n ot always bring in happiness through the use of utilitarianism in carrying out an act (Bennagen, 2000).Last but not least, utilitarianism is being questioned because it violates human rights (Bennagen, 2000). For example, if a Bill is submitted by a minority assemblage leader to be passed as a Law, and will not qualify as a Law simply because majority did not vote for it, then this may jeopardize the rights and happiness of the so called minority groups (Bennagen, 2000). This then may also be justified as an act which is right since happiness is being experienced by the most number of individuals though several people are suffering as well (Bennagen, 2000).ReferenceBennagen, P. (2000). brotherly Economic and Political Thought. Quezon City UPOU