Right vs Wrong

Kant and Mill are two philosophers who have proposed two different ways in which one

can approach situations in their daily life. Kant focuses on more of a decision procedure that

helps someone see if an action that they want to do is right or wrong. On the other hand, Mill has

a resolution approach that helps see the difference between two options when they both seem

appealing. When choosing which to use when dealing with daily ethical decisions I would have

to think hard. Despite this, I think the best option would be to take a little bit of both and use that

to help make my daily ethical decisions as they both possess values that make them valuable.

Kant focuses on the decision and its morality of it rather than the intended outcome. He

says that we are rational beings and so we possess goodwill which is what his theory talks about.

In Immanuel Kant’s The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, he states that a “good which

is already present in the person who acts accordingly, and we have not to wait for it to appear

first in the result,” (Kant 49). People will make decisions for the good that they possess. When

looking at a decision that has to be made, one would not make a decision because it would make

them happy but rather they have the moral obligation to have the motive to do what is right. It is

important to note that as long as you are acting in accordance with moral worth, you do not need

to be worried about the consequences of your actions. If we did something with good intentions

and goodwill but it had a negative impact, we are not blamed or praised as it was not in our

control. This is the one problem that I see with this theory. Just because we have good intentions

is not enough to be excused for the negative consequences of those actions. There are other

things to consider when making decisions. The consequences of an action are still linked with the

initial action and they should be treated the same. I believe that Mill’s theory covers some of

these areas.
 Now I want to talk about Mill’s theory. Mill believes that the scale on which it judges an

action is its ability to promote happiness. In his book, Utilitarianism, he defines the main idea of

his theory, the Greatest Happiness Principle, as “actions are right in proportion as they tend to

promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness,” (Mill 39). This

relates to what I said in the introduction when I said this focuses more on the resolution. In Kant,

we saw that even if the action had a negative outcome, you were not blamed if you did it in good

faith. However, with Mill, we are focusing on the consequences of your actions. You want to

perform actions that bring happiness to others. Considering how your action will bring happiness

to others is the method. You need to make sure that you equally consider the happiness of

everyone around you. This means you have to see the people that will negatively be impacted by

your action. The thought process differs outside of focusing on the consequences because you are

also not considering the morality of the action. Your analysis is strictly on a happiness basis

which I feel makes this theory lack. If you only do what makes the most people happy, you are

not necessarily making the “right” choice. Many times in life, the right choice might be the

obvious one but also the one that upsets a lot of people.

After talking about Mill’s theory, I want to discuss how he and Aristotle look at happiness

and its relationship with ethical decisions. I will first focus on Mill. As I said earlier, his theory

focuses on maximizing happiness while limiting the bad. This shows that he values having the

consequences of someone’s actions cause happiness over anything else. He states “He who saves

a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive is a duty, or the

hope of being paid for his trouble,” (Mill 41). This quote shows that the morals of the person are

not in question. It was a morally right decision to make even though he would only do it because

of a financial reward. To put it simply, Mill believes that happiness is what makes an ethical
decision. Also, it is not your happiness but rather the happiness of everyone who is going to be

affected by your actions. Their happiness matters when you make a decision for yourself. If you

are able to maximize happiness while making sure there is not much worse, that will constitute a

morally right action. This is how Mill views the relationship between the two, however, Aristotle

has a different view.

Aristotle focuses on human well-being and being virtuous which relates to what he

believes are ethical decisions. The goal that we should all strive for according to Aristotle is

reaching Eudaimonia. This can be translated into happiness or flourishing. In Aristotle’s

Nicomachean Ethics, he states that “it is just by doing just acts that the just man is produced, and

by doing temperate acts the temperate man; without doing these no one would have even a

prospect of becoming good,” (Aristotle 431). These just acts that he is talking about are virtuous

actions. You understand that these actions are indeed good so you start to do them. You try to

build those good habits until the point where it becomes part of your character. Once it is part of

your character you do not think twice about these actions. When you reach that stage, you are

flourishing and have reached Eudaimonia. Now how does this relate to ethical decisions? These

virtuous actions are virtuous because they are ethical. The reason you start doing them is that you

understand that they are the right actions to do and it will eventually help you flourish. You are

not looking for the immediate reward but rather you are building your character. This is different

from Mill as he says you should focus on others’ happiness and maximizing those around you

whereas here you want to focus on yourself and build your own character.

Finally, I want to discuss which theories I would find most useful in dealing with my

daily ethical decisions. I think that they each have their pros and cons which is why I would want

to combine the areas I like. First, what I like about Kant. I like how he values the intention of the
action. I would want to consider what my true intentions are in doing something. That is the one

part I would take into consideration. Moving onto Mills, I like how he looks at the consequences.

Making people happy is something that should be given some consideration. However, I would

like to change it a bit. In my daily life, I would want to focus on maximizing happiness for

people I care about. For Mill, everyone is on an equal playing field, but I understand that

everyone has a bias and I would mainly focus on the happiness of those I care about. One thing I

really like about Aristotle’s view is that you are focusing on yourself when making decisions.

That is the bit I would take from him. We get caught up in trying to please everyone else that we

forget to focus on ourselves. All in all, I would combine everything I just stated and use that to

aid me when I make my daily ethical decisions.