Hernandez 1

Brian Hernandez
Dr. Verene
PHIL 115-001
January 14, y
Ethics - Final Paper

John Stuart Mill

According to Mill, since the beginning of man, there has been little
development of any kinds of standards to judge moral actions. There have been some
basic moral beliefs that have been accepted over time, and these beliefs serve as a
standard foundation to be built upon. The fact that these beliefs that make up this
standard foundation have lasted through the history of mankind proves that there is a
standard foundation in the first place. Mill believes that humans have had a basic
understanding of morality from the start, but those understandings need to be
developed. These views were just ideas that had no theoretical basis, they were just
accepted by society. It is at this point that Mill introduces the concept of means to an
end. He believes that all action exists to forward a particular end, implying that he
puts emphasis on the result of the ends rather than on the means. In order to judge
these ends, we must know what morality dictates. In order to do this, we must know
what standards they should be judged by in the first place.
Mill touches upon the idea of moral instinct, but dismisses it because the
existence of such a principle is disputed, because moral instinct is just that - an

Hernandez 2
instinct. Instinct is being inclined toward taking certain action without having put
much thought into the action due to the hardwiring caused by thousands of years of
evolution to act that way in particular. Therefore, it is impossible to tell from instinct
alone whether the action is moral or immoral. Because this moral instinct is
insufficient in ethical decision-making, it is important that we build upon the
unrecognized standard foundation mentioned earlier.
Mill deems this standard the principle of utility, or the Greatest Happiness
Principle. Mill argues that although it is unrecognized by most people, and though
some of those who recognize it oppose the idea, it still has a huge influence in the
development of moral doctrines. Mill defines utility as pleasure itself, or the absence
of pain. According to Mill, this principle holds that actions are right in proportion as
they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by happiness,
pain, and the privation of pleasure. According to this, pleasure and the absence of
pain are the only things that are inherently good or desirable - anything else
considered desirable is so because it is a source for such pleasure.
Mill points out that human pleasures are for the most part similar to animal
pleasures, only at a superior level. For example, when people are made aware of
their higher faculties, they will never be happy to leave them uncultivated. Someone
with an opportunity to be rich will not settle for continuing to be poor. Someone with
an opportunity to be successful will not opt for failure. This is similar to animals: an
animal with an opportunity for an easy meal will not opt for a more difficult to obtain

Hernandez 3
meal. Happiness is a sign that those higher faculties are being exercised. When one
succeeds, they are exercising their higher faculties and are pleased.
While there are things that are and arent desirable, they cannot all be
classified as so because some pleasures are more valuable than others, and some
experiences are less desirable than others. Mill argues that it is important to weigh
the value of each option before making an option, which is where utilitarianism
comes in. When making a moral judgement, it takes into account the value of the
pleasure and not just the quantity of the pleasure. A pleasure can be attributed to
being high quality if one would not trade the pleasure for a greater amount of another
pleasure. Given the opportunity to choose between all kinds of pleasures, one will
pick that which presents an appeal to the highest faculty. For example, animals can
be considered to suffer less because of their ignorance, but a man would not choose
to be an animal over a human because an animal is of lower existence and therefore a
lower faculty. People like this who employ their highest faculties may not always be
content with their decisions, but their pleasure is of a higher character and although
it may be less desirable for the individual, according to the Greatest Happiness
Principle, it can still be desirable by a utilitarian standard.
Mill then moves on to address a claim against utilitarianism: that happiness
cannot be the ultimate aim of life because it is unattainable, and that people can
exist without happiness, that in fact virtuous people have become so by renouncing
happiness. Mill responds by saying that state that people cannot be happy, and that
achieving happiness is not possible is an exaggeration. Happiness is indeed possible.
Mill points out that major sources of unhappiness stem from unselfishness and lack of

Hernandez 4
mental cultivation, implying that with the proper education, one could achieve
happiness. This also implies that evils in the world that cause unhappiness can be
alleviated by an educated society devoted to the campaign. The eradication of
unhappiness thus proves that happiness can be achieved. In regards to those who
renounce their own happiness, Mill responds by saying that those people do so for the
happiness of other people. When that person sees that his sacrifice is causing other
people happiness, he will be happy with himself for his deed.
Utilitarians value sacrificing ones happiness for the happiness of another, but
do not think of their act of sacrifice as a good. The only way it can be thought of as a
good in the eyes of the sacrificer is if that sacrifice results in a good. This
reintroduces Mills principle of means to an end. Utilitarianism is not concerned with
the intent or the motives of the action or the means to the end, but rather the end
result of the action alone. This is a basic principle of utilitarianism, along with the
greatest happiness principle. These two principles are a fundamental part of
utilitarianism and especially for judging the morality of an action.
Mill moves on by stressing the fact that a philosophy cannot be bending unless
there are consequences for breaking the rules. It is then that he addresses the
sanctions embedded within utilitarianism. There are two kinds of sanctions: external
and internal. External sanctions are external to the human agent as an individual and
can include peer pressure or divine pressure - any kind of sanction that exists outside
the confines of the individuals own mind. Internal sanctions stem from that
individuals conscience. This consists of feelings in ones own mind that create

Hernandez 5
discomfort when one violates the moral rules set. An easy analogy to make would be
with Jiminy Cricket from Pinocchio. Jiminy represents Pinocchios conscience in the
childrens story, and when Pinocchio misbehaves or acts immorally, Jiminy acts as an
internal sanction.
Mill explains that with the power that these sanctions hold over individuals,
they could be cultivated to support utilitarian principles in specific. Because
utilitarianism has its roots in the social nature of human beings, people are in desire
to be in unity with everyone else, and fear others disapproval. Mill suggests that
society should exploit the power of these sanctions and use them to nourish natural
sentiment towards other interests, such as education and law. He also explains that
since utilitarianisms sanctions are so deeply rooted in human nature, with proper
education, it could nurture natural human sentiments.
Mill moves on to proving that utilitarianism is actually susceptible. He argues
that happiness is the only true criterion for morality. Happiness is a whole with many
different parts, Mill elaborates, and that anything desired beyond being a means to
happiness is desired because it is a part of happiness.
To end his discussion on utilitarianism, Mill ends his essay with the connection
between justice and utility. He starts by investigating justice and what it means to be
just. He concludes that laws cannot be the ultimate standard of justice because laws
are unjust and may be able to be justly disobeyed.
Mill explains that having a right means that a person has a valid claim on
society to protect them in the possession of that right. Society has one single reason

Hernandez 6
to defend this right, and it is one of general utility. If society doesnt protect everyone
elses rights, there would be no rights to protect, as all of them would be violated.
This is because the preservation of justice preserves peace among people. Thus, it is
in everybodys best interest to protect each others rights as well as our own.
Impartiality is the principle in which there are no favorites assigned or no
special preference given to anybody. This concept is especially because without
impartiality, the Greatest Happiness Principle wouldnt have any meaning at all since
not everybodys happiness would be valued exactly as much as others. Thus,
impartiality is essential so that people can have an equal claim to happiness and the
means to getting to happiness.

Immanuel Kant
Kant divides all rational knowledge into two parts: material knowledge and
formal knowledge. The former is concerned with physics things and objects. Material
knowledge can also be split into two parts itself: nature and freedom, where the
study of nature is physics, and the study of freedom is ethics, which is what Kant will
be most concerned about during his book. The study of ethics according to ethics is
moral philosophy and everything that ought to happen - the study of moral judgement
of actions. The second part of rational knowledge is formal knowledge, concerned
with understanding and reason.
Kant says that all moral concepts have their seat and origin in reason, through
a priori which can be defined as a method of gaining knowledge without drawing on

Hernandez 7
particular experiences. This means that reason and - by extension - all moral concepts
are deeply rooted into the nature of human beings since we can learn about and draw
on this particular knowledge without having to have prior experience with certain
situations. He goes on to say that human reason, cannot be abstracted from any
empirical knowledge, which is knowledge based on external experiences, thus
confirming that reason is intrinsic and cannot be derived from experience.
Kant later explains that everything in nature works in accordance with laws,
whether it be the laws of nature, society, physics, or otherwise. Ethics are no
different, and it has its own set of laws. These laws differ with each individual, as
everybody has their own idea of moral law. However only a rational being has the
power to act in accordance with his idea of laws, and this is called his will. Reason is
required in order to derive actions from laws, so will is nothing but practical reason
since without practical reason, one would not posses the power to act in accordance
with their own interpretation of moral law, and thus would not possess a will.
Kant then goes on to define what makes an action morally good. He states, if
any action is to be morally good, it is not enough that it should conform to the moral
law. To Kant, in order for an action to be morally good, it needs to be done for the
sake of doing moral good - basically the intentions and motives need to be in the right
place. So, if one does a moral good without knowing or without meaning to do so or
being forced to do so, they are not actually acting morally. For example, when a high
school requires its students to do community service in order to graduate, those
students are not acting morally because they are not acting for the sake of the moral

Hernandez 8
good, but because they are forced to do so. Likewise, one cannot be credited to
saving someones life if they did not know that they were doing so. This assertion is
based on what Kant calls a metaphysic of morals, which is regarded as the highest
form of philosophy since it combines gaining knowledge through judgement and
experience. Kant says that without the metaphysic acting as a guiding thread for us,
morals themselves remain exposed to corruption of all sorts. One example Kant uses
to precede the introduction of metaphysic of morals is that of the law. He explains
that in order for one to correctly interpret written law and apply it to a certain
situation, one must not only posses the judgement needed to interpret the law as it is
written, but also experience to know when not to apply the law verbatim.
Kant then goes on to assert that it is impossible to conceive anything at all in
the world which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will.
This builds upon Kants earlier assertion that in order for an action to be considered a
moral action, it must be committed for the sake of the moral law. He extends this
now using good will by stating that there are many things that are good but cannot be
regarded as so because of the ill intentions or ill will associated with the action. He
uses two kinds of gifts as examples: gifts of nature and gifts of fortune. He explains
that gifts of nature (intelligence, wit, judgement, and any other talents of the mind)
can be used for good and moral right, but they can also very easily be used for
wrongdoing if there is ill will involved. The same goes for gifts of fortune (power,
wealth, honor, and complete well-being and contentment with ones state i.e.
happiness). It is easy to see how any of these gifts can be quickly turned into curses.

Hernandez 9
Greed can corrupt a powerful person and the power allows them to do whatever they
please, for one. Good will is different from all of these gifts because there is no way
that good will can be turned into a curse or plague in any way. Good will is
intrinsically good, and therefore requires no qualification because the will is an end
to itself.
As the idea of good will continues to develop, Kant offers some key points to
understanding the importance of good will. One is that will is the cause of your
actions, but things that happen in nature are caused by some other force not
mentioned - not caused by will. With the freedom to act on your will, you are the
cause. Nothing makes you do it because you are free to do whatever you will. Kant
makes it very clear that you must act so that your actions may be used as universal
law. Basically, act as if you are a role model for others to act ethically. This is referred
to as the categorical imperative.
Kants ethical philosophies are centered around the categorical imperative, and
believes that acting by the categorical imperative would benefit everyone. Kant then
goes on to explain how to achieve the categorical imperative. To achieve the
categorical imperative, one must fulfill a series of criteria, including: acting morally,
acting expediently, and acting as a role model. Kant then stresses the importance of
the categorical imperative, mentioning many times that it is not just a good idea, it is
necessary. Upon analysis of practical reason, it is revealed that rational agents must
conform to instrumental principles, considering that the rational being is free to act
upon his own will.

Hernandez 10
Following the principle of the categorical imperative, certain responsibilities
arise from being in a position of acting as a role model. Kant calls these duties, and
divides them into two classifications: perfect and imperfect duties.
Perfect duties consist of things that people must constantly be doing
throughout their daily lives. So an example of a perfect duty would be ones duty to
not commit suicide. The maxim for such an action would potentially be that when one
is depressed, they would commit suicide, however if this were to be carried out
universally, the entire population of humans would die out because everybody gets
depressed at one point in their lives. Suicide is also forbidden under the duty for selflove - another perfect duty. Other examples include not lying, not stealing, and not
making promises you cant keep.
Imperfect duties are those duties that, while not required of people at all
times, are deserving of admiration. An popular example of such a duty is giving to
charity. While it is not required of everybody at all times at every opportunity, it is
looked upon with admiration when one does give to charity. One does have an
obligation to help those in need from time to time, but they need not do it on a
regular basis.

Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche begins his discussion on the genealogy of morals by expressing
dissatisfaction with psychologists who tried to explain the origin of morality. They
suggest that, originally, people benefiting from the unselfish actions of others would
applaud those actions and call them good. Nietzsche disagrees with them and gives

Hernandez 11
examples of the language of several different words such as good and bad and
pure, and how they have been attributed and compared to completely different
things over the course of time. The same goes for the words dark and black. Both
were used to discriminate against a certain kind of people based on their race or
physical appearance or religion - the African-Americans and the non-Aryans of the
European 1930s.
Nietzsche suggests that the revolution in morality occurs when resentment
becomes a creative force. Slave morality is essentially negative, originating in a
denial of everything that is different from it. It looks outward and says No," to the
antagonistic external forces that oppose and oppress it.This is directly opposed to
master morality, which concerns it self very little with anything outside of it. The
natural afterthought after having discussed slaves and masters morals, is that the
masters morality is terrible, and that the slave is the victim, even though in some
cases, this is not true. The slave and master mentality need not only be applied to
actual slaves and masters, it can be applied to situations in which one party is
seemingly dominant over the other and writes the societal rules, for example, the
relationship between government and constituents. The government sets the moral
rules through legislation for the constituents to follow.
Nietzsche agrees with the master-slave morality, since he believes that the
herd should not be ruling and having a say over setting the moral rule. He wants to
bring back the time when the nobles ran things.

Hernandez 12
Nietzsche begins his second essay by discussing conscience. He explains that
guilt and conscience are an illness, and he wants to do away with them. He expands
on this by using a tree analogy. Nietzsche explain that the ripest fruit on a tree is the
sovereign individual. This person is one of a kind, a special person, liberated from
morality of custom. He summarizes the analogy by saying that the man who has his
own independent, protracted will and the right to make promises and in him a proud
consciousness, quivering in every muscle, of what has at last been achieved and
become flesh in him, a consciousness of his own freedom.
He then continues on the topic of guilt by attributing its origination to the
institution of debts. This is easy to explain, as everyone has felt in debt to someone at
least once in their life. When you are in debt to someone you feel guilty, since you
feel that you are obligated to repay that person for their actions, whether this is
actually true or not. A good example that lots of people can relate to is the lending of
money. You go to lunch and youre out of money, so you ask your friend to pay for you.
You know that this is most likely an inconvenience for your friend because that is less
money in his pocket that he could have spent better than getting you food. You feel in
debt to your friend, and start to feel guilty of being the reason that your friend
doesnt have other plans because you took their money.
Nietzsche then goes on to attack the idea of the categorical imperative. He
says that it smells of cruelty and that it gives a tankard that people dont measure
up to, and are punished for not being able to live up to the standard because humans
are naturally cruel.

Hernandez 13
Justice is something else that originated from negative feelings, like guilt.
Justice, according to Nietzsche, originates in resentment. It is often seen that
revenge and justice are used interchangeably even though they are supposed to mean
two different things. Revenge is just seeking justice in a way that is unjust in itself; it
is just a further development of the feeling of being aggrieved.
Punishment, a form of justice, is supposed to awaken guilt in the offender, and
force them to reflect on their actions, deter them from doing it again, and hopefully
deter others from doing it again. In reality, punishment just fulfills the punishers
instinct for cruelty. Unfortunately, punishment doesnt always work. Some people
dont feel the guilt of somethings weighing down on them. Actually, on the contrary,
sometimes it makes criminals feel less guilty, thus getting us nowhere in terms of use
of a punishment on the criminal. Another interesting part of justice and punishment is
that people who show remorse are more likely to be acquitted or at least easier to
empathize with rather than someone who does not feel remorse.
Nietzsche ends his discussion on the genealogy of morals by speaking of a man
with the will to power, and one without guilt or a conscience slowing them down; a
superhuman. Nietzsche says this person will be the anti-Christ and the anti-nihilist
and a victor over God and nothingness. He ends the essay by insisting that he must
come one day.