FREE ESSAY ON COMPARISON OF KANT AND MILL

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.