Are they so different?
Kant is
very vague about what truly is duty, he gives us outlines and what duty should
be like but he ever outright gives one solid definition of duty, so could he
and mills really be so different in their philosophies? Mills believes that one
should do what one can to benefit the greater good. So if Kant’s philosophy is that one should do
their duty and mills promotes the greater good then if ones duty were to do
what one could to benefit the greater good then both mills and Kant’s philosophies
would be in line with each other. So therefore it is merely what dictates ones
sense of duty that separates these two philosophies apart from each other not that
their actual beliefs are entirely different.
An
example of Kant and Mill’s ideologies clashing is in breaking bad as Walter
begins to cook meth in an attempt to provide for his family he is fulfilling
his duty as a father and husband but he is harming the greater good by
providing a disservice to the community by providing illicit substances such as
meth. He is also harming the greater good by leaving the teaching community
when he was such an outstanding educator with a brilliant mind. In these ways
he is only fulfilling Kant’s philosophy and doing his duty but going against
mills philosophy supporting the greater good. Whereas if Walter had stayed with
Gray matter industries he could have left a positive mark on the world doing
his duty to both his family by providing for them and by having the potential
to benefit mankind with astronomical scientific discoveries. In this respect
mills and Kant have a similar philosophical ideal of how Walter should lead his
life, through both duty and the greater good.
Kant and Mill are continually put forward as two very conflicting ideologies. I understand that both philosophies can prescribe the same action in some instances, but the way you get there is completely different.
ReplyDeleteMill thinks only about consequences. For some utilitarians, you can justify any action if you are aiming for good consequences.
Kant, on the other hand, believes in universal morality. He disregards consequences altogether and believes certain actions can NEVER be moral.
In an instance of conflict of duty, Mill would say that you are still being moral. Kant, on the other hand, would say maybe you feel compelled to do it but you are still doing something immoral.
I agree with Andrea, and would also like to comment on the Breaking Bad example. Kant says your moral actions must dictate what any other rational being ought to do. Providing for family as a breadwinner is definitely the moral choice. However, could you prescribe the making and selling of meth as a morally correct thing to do for every breadwinner that is down on their luck? When there is a need to provide and you cannot meet that need, does that mean you should break the law? And truly, Walt picks up the mad scientist life for entirely selfish reasons. That said, Kant would also dislike the charity offered for Walt's treatment. Really, Breaking Bad is filled with mostly moral wrongs.
ReplyDeleteI understand your comparison of the two ideologies being similar and leading to similar paths. However, when considering an example like Breaking Bad, it's important to realize the deeper realities of Walter's actions. The comparison between the greater good and providing for his family seems completely flawed because Walter uses providing for his family as an excuse to pursue his new career in cooking meth. This is exemplified in his decision to leave Gray matter industries, which would have taken care of both his family, and his passion for science. So it seems that in this situation, both Kant and Mill would heavily agree on Walter's neglect of duties and of the greater good of society.
ReplyDelete