Mill objects to Kant's moral theory because of its uselessness. A universal maxim does not do us any favor when deciding what the right thing to do is at a particular instance. Sometimes, the universal maxim demands us to perform some action when it is very likely to lead to grotesque consequences. However, Mill’s utilitarianism seems to be lacking the unity and simplicity that Kant's duty ethics provides.
It seems that what we do in our lives are analyzable to be done out of utilitarian motives. I decide to write this post because I know it is my job as a student to complete assignments, and that I would feel really bad if I don’t complete it. Mill would say that in order to avoid the pain that comes with not doing an assignment, I should then do the assignment. He could also tell me that I should do a student’s job because it leads to greater happiness if I do. If I do an assignment, I might understand the world a little better and maybe one day that understanding is going to come of use for me to make more people happy. However, in reality I really have no idea whether my doing homework is going to help other people or not; also I have no idea if I doing homework is making me happy or not. If I do homework solely because doing homework produces more pleasure than avoiding homework, then would not I stop doing homework when I know that some other activity might produce more happiness than doing homework, or being a student at all? I might just sit and wonder why I am a student and why am I doing homework instead. The statement that pleasure and the absence of pain are the only ends desirable in themselves maybe true, however it still does not give us, rational free agents, q sense of what the right thing to do in one particular instance would be. The choices are not just “do a” or “not do a”, but limitless. In the end, Mill does not do a much better job than Kant in making moral decisions easier.
I agree that I do perform the action of doing assignments for the avoidance of pain that comes from not doing the homework, but only to the point that pain is naturally avoided by my instinct. It does not make it moral that I avoid it. Between Kant and Mill, who do you think does a better job in helping us make moral decisions?
I think what Mill offers that extends beyond Kant's categorical imperative is the distinction between higher and lower pleasures. If you stopped writing your blog post and went shopping, for instance, this would give you a lower pleasure than the mental pleasure of analyzing and discussing Mill. Let's face it: either way, the action does not have that much moral significance for Mill. He says that an action is right in proportion of the happiness it promotes or of the unhappiness it prevents, and an action is wrong is proportion as they promote unhappiness and prevent unhappiness. So if you aren't even sure whether doing your homework makes you happy or not, it probably doesn't have much moral weight.
ReplyDelete