Comparison Of Kant And Mill

The categorical imperative is a better guide for moral reasoning because it can

be applied by the individual with a clear, understandable reverence for the

morality of the whole community. Mill’s utilitarianism is also concerned with the

whole, but the mechanism by which one can judge the worth of his or her

actions is quite a leap.

When a utilitarian makes a moral decision about an action the primary

concern is individual happiness. The agent must then consider the consequences

of this action within the extent of his or her influence. While there is little

argument we all want to be happy, we can not assess the moral worth of our

actions on consequence. It is much too difficult to assimilate individual actions

and consequences with the welfare of humanity as a whole.

Conversely, Kant’s categorical imperative gives an individual a more reliable

mechanism by which to judge his actions. The test begins with intentions rather

than consequences. It is easier to assess intentions than consequences, because

intentions are not as specific to situation and reliant upon outcome. Instead,

good intentions are simple moral intuitions that tend to produce good. If the

whole of humanity shares good intentions, acting only upon those intentions

which the individual would will for everyone produces the greatest good.