A Comparison between the Moral Philosophy of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant

The discussion on Moral Philosophy and ethics has always been a controversial and in truth debatable topic, especially if we be to discuss each and every philosophical system or ideology of every philosopher starting off from Greece up to the stakes Modernists. In relation to this particular philosophy, the author would like to compare twain of the philosophers lesson philosophies and how each come to have similarities and contrast with each.To be more specific, the author would like to dwell on the similarities and differences amongst the deterrent example philosophies of utileism proponent John Stuart mill and Idealist Im soldieryuel Kant and to answer the question What are the key concepts in the object lesson theory of John Stuart hoagie and Immanuel Kant? Furthermore, to be able to answer the specific question What are the similarities and differences in the moral ideologies of pulverisation and Kant?The school of Utilitarianism had John Stuart Mill as one of its ta ke proponents. Mill speaks of morality in the sense of desire versus desirable besides he contradicts that of Jeremy Bentham. He farther states that the true utilitarian interprets the superlative gladness principle to mean not my greatest happiness but the greatest happiness of the greatest number.1 Contrary to the first utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham, Mill posits through this principle the concept of greater good for the greater whole.Mill further states that utility would enjoin first, that laws and social arrangements should place the happiness or the use up of every individual, as nearly as attainable in agreement with the interest of the whole and secondly, that education and opinion which have so extensive a power of humanity character, should so use that power as to establish in the mind of every individual an indissolvable association between his give birth happiness and the good of the wholeso that a shoot impulse to promote the general good maybe in ev ery individual one of the habitual motives of action.2We can see arising from this argument that Mill was giving more emphasis on the quality of recreations and not besides our personal pleasure and turns towards the good of the whole which we must seek. This therefore gives Mill ground morality not just on personal pleasure but more on our obligation towards the people or on others.This, according to Mill does not at all contradict with the Utilitarian doctrine / teaching where one aims to seek for happiness or pleasure. jibe to Mill, happiness is the center of moral life and the most desirable remainder of human conduct. The said argument of Mill gives us a patriarchal area in asking what would be the basis or doctor basis of desirable?Mill answers that that which is desirable is that we ought to choose. delight is something that we desire and it is our moral duty to pursue happiness. Mills moral principle evolves in the concept that an act is good in so far as it produces happiness. Mill was trying to build a moral system that was base on duty, by stating that which ought to do upon what in circumstance we already do. Happiness for him is still the ultimate of human conduct.When Mill posited happiness as something that man should sought for out of duty, it cannot but prevent people from raising their counter-arguments with the interrogation how can we prove that happiness is the true and desirable end of human life and conduct?To answer the query, Mill posits and states that the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people does desire it.3 The answer that Mill provided though has not completely settled his detractors because Mill has made an analogy wherein he compared visible to that which is desirable. consort to him, that which is visible mean that something is capable of being seen, thus, that which is desirable mechanically makes us desire it. Such a conclusion falls infra one of the logical fallacies bec ause that which is seen, by means of the faculty of the mind means it is visible to our senses but that which is desirable, cannot and does not automatically become an end that we would ought to desire.The fact lies that the human mind, man, as a person may desire a thing which is not desirable in the first place. Mill proposes that our pursuit is not limited to happiness alone but the pursuit of duty. According to him, a sense of duty directs our moral thought. For him, the basis of morality is a powerful natural sentiment, a subjective feeling in our own minds and the conscientious feelings of mankind.1 Stumpf, Samuel Enoch. Socrates to Sartre A History of Philosophy. Singapore Mc Graw Hill Inc. 1991. p. 348. 2 ib. 3 Ibid. p. 349.