Kant and Mill: More similar than you might think

May 16, 2017•3,805 words

In the world of moral frameworks, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill’s philosophies are often regarded as two directly opposed camps of thought, with Kant caring purely about motives of actions, and Mill caring only about the outcomes of any actions. Kant’s categorical imperative (principled commands dependent only on themselves) and formulations derived from the imperative all emphasize the importance of treating others with respect as an end in themselves regardless of circumstances, and also how actions should be considered by their moral worth based on intention and universality. By universality, Kant means you should consider your action to be universalized and performed infinitely many times by inhabitants of our world. If it still retains moral worth and can become a maxim (philosophical truth), then it is a good maxim and action (regardless of outcome). For Kant, only a good will can be considered good without need for any other consideration (Kant 7). What constitutes a good pure intention is detailed by Kant as a categorical imperative, in other words an imperative based on maxims that can be universalized and are uninhibited by selfish reasons. If one were to base their intentions on desires or impulses, then that would be a hypothetical imperative, which is an imperative set in order to achieve a certain goal. Primary objections to Kant involve how his Formulation of Humanity as an End in Itself would require one to never lie, and thus would lead to situations like having to tell Nazi’s where Jews are hiding for example (Yount). Mill’s Utilitarianism on the other hand inspects the outcomes, and from a simple view just calculates whether more pleasure or pain will be derived from a certain situation. Traditionally, Utilitarian pleasures or pains are weighed according to their intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, and purity (Bentham 19). Intensity relates to the strength of the pleasure (or pain) during its activation. Duration calculates its lifespan. Certainty (or uncertainty) relates to the likelihood of pleasure or pain from occurring following a certain action or choice. Propinquity or remoteness measures the distance or impact that the pleasure or pain has on a certain individual subject. Fecundity measures the chances of a pleasure or pain to reproduce similar feelings after the act, while purity measures the chances that a pleasure or pain will not bring about an opposite feeling. After calculating the pains and pleasures, whichever action gives the most pleasure (or least pain), is the course of action that should be taken. Utilitarianism can be specified into two types, Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Where Act utilitarianism is situation-specific, and Rule Utilitarianism considers the larger picture and attempts to calculate which outcome serves the greater good in pleasure (and can be said to pay more attention fecundity and purity). Main objections to Mill involve situations where it might be beneficial to more people if one (or the few) were sacrificed to help save other lives (greater in number) (Yount). If one person is killed and his organs are used to save five people, then to go by the numbers, utility and pleasure is positive. These summaries are a vast oversimplification of the two’s moral philosophies though, and in truth the two are actually more similar than one might expect when closely inspected in their ideologies and truly understood.

At their basis, both Kant and Mill’s philosophies rely on fundamental principles derived from theoretical deduction (a priori reasoning), which they then use to mold moral frameworks to guide human actions (Wood 61). While they place in primary position different emphases (namely, motives and outcomes), they still care about the other’s emphasis (Wood 54-55, 260-261). Kant did place foremost importance on a person’s intentions, but outcomes were still very important to him, after all, he crafted his moral framework as a guideline for humans to create a better society. Kant’s test for universalizing maxims according to his first Formulation of Universalizability includes a consideration for the outcome of an action. As for Mill, he did indeed focus on calculations of pleasure (over pain) resulting from actions, but these outcomes would not be possible if not a single person aimed for them at all. Accomplishing a certain outcome has a higher statistical chance of success if aimed for, and if the outcomes are to benefit society as a whole by Rule Utilitarianism, then it would follow for people’s intentions to fall into the right place. In fact, Rule Utilitarianism’s calculation for what provides the greatest good in pleasure has an inherent consideration for universality of an action, similar to Kant’s universalizing maxims. Kant and Mill’s starting points may differ, with Kant emphasizing intentions and Mill focusing on outcomes, but in the larger picture both converge, hoping for the other’s emphasis to appear as well. Kant and Mill do not oppose each other, they simply hold the other’s primary focus as secondary positions in their theory. Kant focuses on having good intentions in order to fuel better outcomes for society and humanity; Mill focuses on good outcomes and consequently builds up good moral behavior and intentions in order to fulfil those outcomes. In fact by Rule Utilitarianism one could easily discredit the objection that the horrible situation of sacrificing one individual for the benefit of others would manifest by following Utilitarian thought, since in actuality this course of action would never be optimal, for it would not be beneficial to society if people could just straight up disappear if their lives could easily be sacrificed to save others (the fecundity is lacking). The sense of uneasiness in society it would cause would also not be beneficial.

Another of Mill’s responses to an objection to Utilitarianism provides a good connection to Kant. When critics claimed that following Utilitarianism equated living life as an equal to beasts blindly following pleasures, Mill replied that “[the] comparison of the Epicurean life to that of beasts is felt as degrading, precisely because a beast's pleasures do not satisfy a human being's conceptions of happiness. Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification” (The Collected Works 210-211). In criticizing certain actions, the critics are themselves doing a value judgement regarding the highness of lowness of a pleasure. The differentiating factor between humans and swine has a connection to how Kant calls for humans to abide by maxims that can be universalized. Mill states that,

It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others.... If I am asked what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. (The Collected Works 222)

This universalization directly correlates to Kant, both are aiming to maximize general welfare, they simply approach it from different sides. In fact, a Kantian world with no good outcomes and only shining jewels of motives, along with a world of good outcomes but rife with negative emotions and ill wills both sound horrible. Intentions and outcomes are two sides of the same coin, and have to have balance.

Kant and Mill both would be assenting in the idea that people aiming to do dirty deeds harmful to the good or health of society should be impeded, or at least that they are evil, and in a perfect world would not exist. Kant obviously believes this, as his entire belief focuses on intentions (rather than outcomes), and chiefly is to be interpreted in the context of how humans should act in a perfect world (which shuts down rejections of not being able to lie to Nazis, because in a perfect world you wouldn’t have to worry about that). Mill on the other hand is often pitted against Kant, as only caring about the outcomes of an action, no matter what the intention is. But if people who intend to do bad but accidentally do good are continually encouraged for their actions and possibly even enabled with higher statuses of office or power, the future outcomes could be very bad. In fact, if society as a whole trended with “evil” intentions, and if by luck they all had good outcomes for an initial period of time, once the laws of probability take grasp and most outcomes follow their intentions, then society would be in a disarray. The mental health of society would be corrupted as well, since “evil” intentions with good outcomes were encouraged and flourished. By calculating utility on the grandest of scales (which was Mill’s intention for Utilitarianism as a moral framework for society as a whole), Mill would disagree with it too.

Mill never intended to discredit good moral intentions; anyone who claims intentions mean nothing in Mill’s beliefs obviously has never studied Mill past what a simple cursory glance in an introductory writing course would glean them. An important passage from Mill’s defining work, Utilitarianism, reads:

It is a strange notion that the acknowledgment of a first principle is inconsistent with the admission of secondary ones. To inform a traveller respecting the place of his ultimate destination, is not to forbid the use of landmarks and direction-posts on the way. The proposition that happiness is the end and aim of morality, does not mean that no road ought to be laid down to that goal, or that persons going thither should not be advised to take one direction rather than another…. Whatever we adopt as the fundamental principle of morality, we require subordinate principles to apply it by: the impossibility of doing without them, being common to all systems, can afford no argument against any one in particular: but gravely to argue as if no such secondary principles could be had, and as if mankind had remained till now, and always must remain, without drawing any general conclusions from the experience of human life, is as high a pitch, I think, as absurdity has ever reached in philosophical controversy. (The Collected Works 224-225)

Here, Mill calls it hogwash to not allow any secondary principles, and uses a clear analogy of a traveler using directions to demonstrate his case. Sure, Utilitarianism has a primary principle of maximizing the pleasure of outcomes, but as Mill clearly states, he holds a secondary principle of intentions as guiding posts to the goal of maximizing utility as well. The only difference with Kant is that he places utility foremost, and relegates intentions to a secondary principle.

Kant and Mill’s moral frameworks not only emphasize universality, they also both place strong emphasis on the importance of humanity and freedom. By placing emphasis on acting without ulterior motives, Kant seeks to tell us to elevate ourselves from the bondage of selfish wants and needs (Wood 3-4). By the second Formulation of Humanity as an End in Itself, Kant asks us to disregard our selfish goal-oriented desires and act selflessly. By overcoming these selfish wants and needs (classified as hypothetical imperatives) Kant wishes for individuals to have true control over their actions and choices. This emphasis on rational dignity has a direct association with Mill’s inquiries on liberty, where Mill places importance on freedom of speech and free will in deciding how one wishes to live their lives (so long as it does not cause harm to others) (On Liberty II.1, III.4). Mill’s argument for allowing humans to live freely is that “Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develope itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing” (On Liberty III.4). Mill’s description of humanity is quite beautiful, and the idea that humanity should be given freedom in order to develop is one quite set apart from the stereotypical Utilitarian ideal that diminishes humans to simple chess pieces in a game of maximizing “points” (of pleasure). From this we can see how Kant-like Mill actually is, despite his focus on utility and outcomes, the importance he places on humans and their ability to flourish is so human. Mill also explains through reasoning how allowing people to live in any mode of life they wish is beneficial since it would let rare geniuses develop their faculties unimpeded and allow them to contribute to and advance society (On Liberty III.13). Mill’s respect for rational dignity akin to Kant shines through in one last argument he makes for individuality and free will:

If a person possesses any tolerable amount of common sense and experience, his own mode of laying out his existence is the best, not because it is the best in itself, but because it is his own mode. Human beings are not like sheep; and even sheep are not undistinguishably alike. A man cannot get a coat or a pair of boots to fit him, unless they are either made to his measure, or he has a whole warehouseful to choose from: and is it easier to fit him with a life than with a coat, or are human beings more like one another in their whole physical and spiritual conformation than in the shape of their feet? (On Liberty III.14)

The whole analogy between fitting a mode of life to a person like a coat not only demonstrates the issues Mill has with modern societies’ constraining of individuals, but also illuminates Mill’s strong fervor for the right of individuals to express themselves freely. The first sentence “If a person possesses any tolerable amount of common sense and experience, his own mode of laying out his existence is the best, not because it is the best in itself, but because it is his own mode” is Mill’s appeal to an intrinsic dignity that humans as rational beings have and should be afforded. The next couple lines of analogy explain his point in an easy way for readers to understand, and the last phrase “is it easier to fit him with a life than with a coat, or are human beings more like one another in their whole physical and spiritual conformation than in the shape of their feet?” is written to emphasize how silly it is to all live the same lifestyles. If humans vary in shoe and coat-size enough already, then how big would the difference be when comparing internal desires and suitability?

Both Kant and Mill would not have wanted tyrannical dictatorships, whether in the form of government or in general opinion, to take control of public thought and actions. Kant obviously wishes for individuals to think for themselves and be able to elevate themselves away from the pressures of mortal gains and selfish wants, but the more powerful a society is in imposing their will on the individual (through sanctioned punishments or public humiliation) the harder it is for the individual to truly attain that freedom. As for Mill, his chief arguments against a cult of thought are based on its repulsiveness to the freedom of the individual, and how it would lead to a stagnation of ideas and advancement, eventually leading to a demise of society.

Whenever viewing a matter it is important to understand the layers. On the surface it may have seemed like Kant and Mill were quite dissimilar, with Kant’s categorical imperative directly opposing Mill’s calculations of utility, but once fully understood in their frames of reference, it becomes clear that both actually have similar goals (for the betterment of society and the individual) and simply argue for those goals from different standpoints. The main differences in their starting points and ideologies typically converge when inspected on secondary and tertiary levels. Kant’s primary focus on intentions holds a secondary position in Mill’s philosophy, whereas Mill’s primary focus on outcomes holds a secondary position in Kant’s philosophy as well. Their format in holding a single a priori fundamental principle is also the same, and their fervent defense of the individuality and freedom human beings deserve as rational beings pulls them together again. In terms of their opinions on modern society, we’ve argued that they likely both agree on how suffocating it is, and it can be further elaborated that they probably would hold similar views on practical solutions and events in society, since their main theoretical differences both converge towards the same wishes and goals (of producing a better society for the individual).

Works Cited

Bentham, Jeremy, and John Stuart Mill. “Principles of Morals and Legislation.” The Classical Utilitarians: Bentham and Mill. Ed. John Troyer Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2003. Print.

Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. 4th ed. London: Longman, Roberts, & Green, 1869. <www.econlib.org>. Accessed 18 April 2017.

Mill, John Stuart. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume X - Essays on Ethics, Religion, and Society, ed. John M. Robson, Introduction by F.E.L. Priestley (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985). 5/12/2017. <http://oll.libertyfund.org/>

Wood, Allen W. (2007). Kantian Ethics. Cambridge University Press.

Yount, David. "Kant v. Mill: Pros and Cons." Kant v. Mill: Pros and Cons. Mesa Community College, n.d. Web. 09 May 2017. <http://www.mc.maricopa.edu>.

Bibliography

Azeri, Onur. "A Brief Comparative Analysis of Kant's and Mill's Ethical Systems." Onpaper18. Kent State University, 2 Mar. 1997. Web. 09 May 2017. <http://www.personal.kent.edu>.

Berthold, Daniel. "The Golden Rule in Kant and Utilitarianism." (n.d.): 1-34. 17 Apr. unknown. Web. 10 May 2017. <http://www.bard.edu/>.

Golden, Marilyn and Tyler Zoanni. "Killing Us Softly: The Dangers of Legalizing Assisted Suicide." Disability and Health Journal, vol. 3, no. A Disability Perspective on the Issue of Physician Assisted Suicide, 01 Jan. 2010, pp. 16-30. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2009.08.006.

Hitchcock, D. L. "Comparison of Kant and Mill." Comparison of Kant and Mill. McMaster University, n.d. Web. 09 May 2017. <http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca>.

Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.

Kuhse, Helga. "Euthanasia Fact Sheet." Euthanasia Fact Sheet | The World Federation of Right to Die Societies. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2017.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. 4th ed. London: Longman, Roberts, & Green, 1869. www.econlib.org. Accessed 18 April 2017.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. N.p.: n.p., 1863. UTILITARIANISM by John Stuart Mill. Web. 10 May 2017. <https://www.utilitarianism.com>.

Rohatyn, Dennis A. "Mill, Kant, and Negative Utility." Philosophia 5.4 (1975): 515-21. Web. 10 May 2017. <https://philpapers.org>.

Sjöstrand, Manne, et al. "Autonomy-Based Arguments against Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: A Critique." Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, vol. 16, no. 2, May 2013, pp. 225-230. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11019-011-9365-5.

Wood, Allen W. (2007). Kantian Ethics. Cambridge University Press.

Yount, David. "Kant v. Mill: Pros and Cons." Kant v. Mill: Pros and Cons. Mesa Community College, n.d. Web. 09 May 2017. <http://www.mc.maricopa.edu>.