| Papers [1-16] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "MORALS MILL KANT": |
|
|
Morals According to Mill and Kant, 2004.
Compares the ideas and theories on morals of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 3 sources, APA, AU$ 69.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares the ideas and theories of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant concerning morals. The paper compares their views on moral concerns necessary for ethical decisions and moral perceptions of higher and lower pleasures. The paper also examines and discusses differences between the two philosophers regarding moral judgment and decisions and contends that Kant's moral system is more complete.
From the Paper
"Any truly complete ethics must address a number of concerns. These concerns include moral perception, moral choice, moral judgment, moral justification and moral systems. While a number of theorists have addressed these aspects of ethics, the ideas and theories advanced by Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill seem to offer the most complete and affirmative approaches to these concerns. For any ethics to exist there must be some type of moral perception present in individuals and in entire societies. John Stuart Mill found that almost all..."
| |
|
John Mill and Immanuel Kant, 2001.
An examination and comparison of the theories of John Mill and Immanuel Kant.
975 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An examination of John Mill and Immanuel Kant's theories on ethics. The author examines Mill's view of hedonistic ethics and Kant's view of reason and intentions. The author explains and compares these two point of views.
From the Paper
"Ethics, being as broad and opinion-based as it is, can be a difficult issue not only to define, but also to explain clearly to others. In the 18 and 19 hundreds two outgoing philosophers set forth to provide moral theories formed with concrete information, to add to the foundation of ethics. These two men were John Mill and Immanuel Kant, and their views were known as Utilitarianism and Kantian theory respectively. Both avoid interlacing their own opinions, in hope of finding a greater genuineness to their conjectures. Mill offers us a hedonistic ethics, full of pleasure and ends, while Kant proposes ridged principles of reason and intentions. Due to the fact that the subject is so hard to understand, many times their work must be interpreted and simplified. This paper will attempt to do just that, clarify the conjectures of these two theorists."
| |
|
Mill and Kant in a Chemical Plant, 2004.
An application of the ethics of John Mills and Immanuel Kant to the chemical industry.
1,031 words (approx. 4.1 pages), 1 source, MLA, AU$ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how the application of ethical theory is an essential part of many industries and how the industrial, engineering, and chemical industries (among others) must include rigorous applications of ethical standards in order to insure public safety. It looks at how John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant are two philosophers who have made the greatest contributions to the understanding of ethical behavior in Western society and how, although they have significant differences, one can apply their respective theories to specific industrial scenarios and come to interesting conclusions.
From the Paper
"Unlike the ?utilitarianism? system, Kant believed that the individual is as important as the group?that the greater good is not an excuse for immoral means. Therefore, because one would presumably not want disregard of human life in order to save others to become ?universal law,? then the chemical plant worker must disclose the actions of the plant. The greater good is not a factor. Of course, like in Mill?s philosophy, there are complications. Whereas in Mill?s philosophy, the rights of the individuals can be greatly jeopardized by ideas of the ?greater good,? in Kant?s philosophy, the ?greater good? tends to be disregarded?perhaps a problem in itself."
| |
|
Moral Theories of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, 1994.
A description of the theories and an argument for the superiority of Kant's based on the greater emphasis on the individual's freedom of will and the role of God.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 1 source, AU$ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This study will examine the moral theories of John Stuart Mill in Utilitarianism and Immanuel Kant in Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. The study will specifically argue that, although there are similarities in the two philosophers' approaches to morality, Kant's is the superior moral theory in part because it places greater responsibility on the freedom of the individual's will as an expression of God's will, discerned through reason, and in part because Mill ignores God's will and puts all power for defining morality in terms of man's slippery definition of "pleasure" or "happiness."
Both Mill and Kant rightly advocate the freedom of the individual in determining moral behavior, but both also rightly connect the behavior of the individual with the good of other human beings. "
| |
|
Kant and Mill, 2007.
An analysis of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill's views of morality and their application to certain scenarios.
1,643 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 78.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the views expressed by Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill with regards to the metaphysics of morals and utilitarianism. In other words, it discusses moral obligations and motivations. The paper presents various examples where there are issues with morality and describes how Kant and Mill would view the situation and the conclusions they may have drawn.
From the Paper
"Mill, on the other hand, might view Judah's act as one that is morally permissible. For Mill, the principle of utility must factor in the relative pain of Dolores' death, and the pain of those who would be affected by allowing her to reveal their affair. With Dolores dead, Judah, his family, friends, and others would be spared the psychological harm of dealing with adultery and betrayal. No one would have to deal with the horrible divorce that would ensue. However, had Dolores broken up his marriage, then it seems no one, not even Judah or Dolores would be happy. So, in this sense, one would view the murder as a morally defensible action. This, however, does not seem entirely correct, as the pain of Dolores' death seems a much greater slight than the pain that his family would experience by the knowledge of the affair. Mill's principle of utility seems to be able to account for qualitative factors (in separating the two forms of pleasure, Mill obviously views qualitative factors as meaningful in moral calculus), thereby providing the justification that Dolores' murder is unacceptable, as her pain would outweigh the potential pleasure realized by her death, or the pain that would accompany her revealing the affair (cf. Mill 11)."
| |
|
Kant's "Metaphysics of Morals", 2004.
An analysis of the significance of the "role of reason" in Kant's fundamental approach in his "Metaphysics of Morals".
6,408 words (approx. 25.6 pages), 31 sources, MLA, AU$ 216.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how, for the philosopher Kant, an understanding of knowledge is circumscribed by the limitations of sensory experience. It looks at how, in "The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals", he delineates an understanding of the law and duty, which has its source a priori and is necessarily uncontaminated by empirical volition and data. It also discusses how his moral philosophy insists that knowledge that is contingent of context and conditions is not the highest knowledge and, in fact, dilutes pure understanding. It shows how Kant explores the ramifications of his view of moral understanding in a rigorous analysis of the action of a priori, synthetic reason and shows how reason acts ?in itself? to produce the groundwork for a metaphysics of morals.
Outline
Abstract
Contents
Introduction and Overview
Foreground: A general Overview of Some Essential Concepts
Reason
An Analysis of Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals
Bibliography
From the Paper
"In the third section of the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant attempts to elucidate the difficulty of understanding freedom in a moral sense. His analysis differentiates the knowledge that can be obtained from the senses, through experience, from that which is valid through reason alone. This relates to the seminal element that runs like an intellectual current throughout his work, which is the distinction made between a contingent reality derived from sense experience and a reality or ?understanding? that comes from an a priori synthetic reasoning."
| |
|
Kant and Morals, 2005.
A look at what the concept of moral meant to Immanuel Kant.
1,958 words (approx. 7.8 pages), 4 sources, APA, AU$ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how Immanuel Kant had firm beliefs that first we start with a moral sense within reason and through this, every normal thinking person will have the principles of morals. It looks at how Kant being a rationalist firmly felt that we have preconceived ideas about the world and how his fundamental principles of morality reflect his idea that our moral principles are based within reason.
From the Paper
"Kant's standpoint differs from Mill's on the point about where our morals lay. Mill believed that it was the consequence of an action that makes it moral, rather than the motive behind the action. Like Kant, Mill also believed that as long as there is enough goodness in the end the motive is not that important. Kant's second principle of the categorical imperative is something that I can agree with in respect to morality. That everybody should have a degree of respect for others and treat others with dignity. Kant touched on what humanity is in my mind. People giving each other the respect they as individuals deserve. "
| |
|
"Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals" ( Immanuel Kant ), 1999.
Examines views on freedom, will, duty, morality, reason and reality.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 1 source, AU$ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant in Section Three discusses his concept of freedom, beginning with the idea of the will as a kind of causality. The idea that freedom is perfect rationalism is expressed by Kant, and Kant indeed indicates how some actions are determined while others are subject to free will. He shows that those that are performed out of free will are ethically superior. Thus, Kant connects his idea of freedom to his idea of moral duty. Kant distinguishes between acts that are performed out of duty and acts which are performed for the sake of duty, holding that those acts performed in accordance with duty but not from duty have no moral worth. In making this distinction, Kant is setting forth a moral principle in keeping with his view that morality does not derive from nature but from the mind, and it is what is intended that is.."
| |
|
Kant and Mill on Terminal Illness, 2002.
A comparison of the philosophies of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill concerning the terminally-ill.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 2 sources, AU$ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper provides a philosophical argument concerning terminal illness. The premise is that the arguments of two philosophers, John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, are used to inform a hospital patient that she is suffering from a terminal illness.
| |
|
The Ethical Arguments of Kant and Mill, 2005.
This paper explores the similarities between the ethical theories of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill.
1,282 words (approx. 5.1 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses Immanuel Kant's and John Stuart Mill's systems of ethical behavior and shows their similarities in how both are concerned with the moral and ethical duties of the individual with regards to the whole of humanity. The paper reveals how both theories are incomplete; Kant's "Categorical Imperative" suffers from the contradiction that arises when moral actions engender immoral consequences, while Mill's Utilitarianism fails to provide an unambiguous way to judge individual moral actions.
From the Paper
"Immanuel Kant, in The Foundations of the Metaphysic of Morals, puts forth a deontological theory of moral action in a trio of formulations called the "Categorical Imperative". It is considered deontological because it is concerned solely with what one "ought" to do, rather than the consequences of action. Thus the determination of ethical behavior is based upon an obligation to act according to a rational principle which is itself universal, absolute, and unconcerned with the consequences. This foundational aspect of the theory is rendered problematic when moral actions create immoral circumstances. If the Categorical Imperative holds all untruths to be immoral, then honestly answering a murderer who requests that one identify the intended victim would be a morally right action that results in a morally objectionable murder."
| |
|
Kant's & Mill's Philosophy Of Duty, 1989.
Discusses how Mill's is based on feeling & concern for others, Kant's based purely on reason. Concludes Kant's philosophy is deficient.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 3 sources, AU$ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The purpose of this paper is to define, explain and compare Immanuel Kant's and John Stuart Mill's philosophies of "duty." Where Kant's was based purely on reason, Mill's was based on feeling and concern for others. The research will conclude with an analysis of the philosophies' strength and, particularly, whether Kant's theories have stood the test of time.
Kant (1724-18O4) is commonly thought to have been the greatest philosopher in the history of modern philosophy (Schacht 221). A popular lecturer at the university in Konigsberg, located in the Soviet Union, his influence has been enormous though most of his great works were written after he was fifty years old. Since his death, a great deal of Western philosophy has been viewed as an attempt to come to terms with him, either by challenging his contentions on (...)"various issues, or by
| |
|
Kant and Mill, 2004.
An analysis of the differences between Immanuel Kant's philosophy and that of John Stuart Mill.
1,194 words (approx. 4.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, AU$ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares John S. Mill's theory of utilitarianism to Immanuel Kant's deontological theory. The paper discusses Kant's theory that the promotion of the happiness of others could only be an imperfect duty. The paper contrasts this with Mill's belief that the moral worth of actions should be judged by the consequences produced.
From the Paper
"Immanuel Kant's deontological theory of morality approaches the question of duties and rights through the lens of the rational nature of the moral subject. Thus, the appeal of Kantian theory lies in its recognition of the intrinsic worth and absolute dignity of human beings (Grisez, p. 125). In fact, Kant's emphasis on individual worth and dignity partly explains his assertion that we only have an imperfect duty to promote the happiness of others, and that too, as long as it does not violate the categorical imperative. Kant's assertion, however, is more fully explained by the fact that he derived his classification of duties from his categorical imperative that there were certain actions that were wrong irrespective of whether such actions increased the total amount of happiness in the world (Hudelson, p. 76-77). It is evident that Kant's reasoning was derived from the need to protect the freedom and dignity of human beings."
| |
|
Evaluation of Kant's Moral Philosophy, 2002.
An evaluation of "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals - Deriving the Moral Law" by Immanuel Kant.
1,920 words (approx. 7.7 pages), 1 source, AU$ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A paper which explores philosopher Immanuel Kant's theory which is expressed in his book ?Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals - Deriving the Moral Law? where he guarantees a surefire formula we should apply for every decision we make. What is absolutely right and wrong (morals) by Kant?s definition are exclusively an idea from pure reason and not from anything we experience in the natural world. Therefore a pure, universal moral law is ?indispensably necessary? to allow for morality to live up to its name without any influence from our fallible empirical inclinations. His theory is examined by answering several questions pertaining to modern life.
From the Paper
"This supreme principle of morality is called the Categorical Imperative. Categorical means it is universal, and imperative means that it is absolute and must be done for its own sake. It is used by the will to determine the right action for every situation. The will is important, because the good will is the only thing without qualification that can be good. If it is the only true good thing, then it must be the basis for all good actions. Kant states that we have a duty to follow what we determine is right by reasoning. So the next piece of Kant?s philosophy is to explain how to go about this reasoning using the Categorical Imperative."
| |
|
Socrates, Kant and Morality, 2008.
A comparative analysis of the views of Socrates and Kant on morality.
1,982 words (approx. 7.9 pages), 7 sources, APA, AU$ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines Socrates' and Kant's philosophies regarding morality and looks at how the fundamental difference in the definition between the two is that Kant's moral failure is an independent act to a moral right by virtue of the lack of impact of consequences while Socrates' main model of immorality is based on injustice resulting from the action. It discusses, therefore, how the dilemma of immorality in the former is an ethical one and immorality in the latter is presented as a social dilemma.
Outline:
Socrates
Socrates on Morality
Kant on Socrates
Socrates, Kant and Morality
From the Paper
"Kant's Moral philosophy is one of the main alternatives to utilitarianism which marginalizes moral humanistic virtues. Kant's view on morality is essentially deontological which implies a focus on the action to be done regardless of the consequences ("Kant: The Moral", 2001). This implies that if a person is doing something that is right, then even if the results of his actions create a negative outcome, then he still did the right thing. There is also a prescriptive quality to Kant's view: the assumption is that everyone should do what is right and that it should be universally right (Wood, 2004). Thus, for an action to be considered moral, it should be within the capacity of everyone and viewed as a correct action universally ("Kant's Moral Philosophy", 2007). Viewing Socrates' action through Kant's Moral Philosophy, there are arguments both to support the morality of Socrates actions."
| |
|
Kant and Morality, 2005.
This paper looks at Kant's beliefs on morality.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 4 sources, MLA, AU$ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper, the writer examines Kant's beliefs on morality and the universal good of will. The writer compares Hume's ideas on morality with those of Kant. In this article, the writer's opinion on this matter is also expressed.
From the Paper
"Kant believed that will is the only thing inherently good without qualification and that we should behave according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. By behaving this way a person is hoping that everyone else will behave this way in the future and so good will can be spread. Kant maintained that the expression of the moral law provides a concrete practical method for evaluating particular human actions of different types. For instance if ... "
| |
|
Morality: Kant and Hume, 2004.
Compares Immanuel Kant's and David Hume's concepts of morality.
1,130 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 3 sources, APA, AU$ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a comparison and contrast of the concept of morality and morals as expressed by philosophers, Immanuel Kant and David Hume. The paper also examines each philosopher's view of God.
From the Paper
"Hume believed that all knowledge was restricted to ideas or impressions, feeling that the mind was the sum total product of a host of perceptions accumulated over time. Other than what is directly observable there is no knowledge. Hume also believed that God could not exist because God is only an idea in the mind of man. Kant, in contrast, opposed Hume's skepticism and felt that pure reason was of use in understanding the world, however he challenged enlightenment thinkers because he did..."
|
|
|
