Human reason gives people the unique ability to control themselves to a unique degree and in different ways from irrational beings. Both Kant and Mill accept this idea—that this rationality is distinctly human and therefore plays some role in developing a basis of moral action for such human rational beings. Indeed, self-control is an intrinsic part of both philosophers’ conclusive ideas. But still, Kant’s deontological ideas of morality and Mill’s utilitarian ideas of morality are clear opposites. I was struck by this juxtaposition despite the importance of self-control, so I tried to identify where the ideas diverge in respect to what they expect from self-control.
Kant would say that exercising moral control would be the same as exercising humanity’s unique ability to create rules for itself that may oppose rules of instinct. So acting FOR THE SAKE OF DUTY, the ultimate way to act morally, takes extreme control of the mind: essentially one must CONTROL the will behind their actions.
Mills, on the other hand, would say that the moral way to use one’s self control is by meticulously calculating the utility of an action (that is, its consequential pleasure or pain). So the unique, higher sense of pleasure and pain of humans is monitored with careful control by the moral person.
Examining these differing ways of employing self-control, I can’t help but ask the question “Is each of these possible?” A person’s will to act, I believe, does not lie under the control of a person’s rationality. Habituation could, I think, make a person accustomed to acting in a certain moral way to the point that that person would not even have to think about the action, but that does not mean that the will itself is being controlled, just the way the will is obeyed or disobeyed. This then suggests that some other form of control, namely Mill’s idea of self-control, is employed when people act morally. When a person considers an action and judges it as moral or immoral, Kant argues that a moral person will consider the consequences and use his or her self-control to measure those consequences, not control his or her will. The fact, though, that Mill’s expectations seem possible while Kant’s expectations doesn’t necessarily mean utilitarianism is correct and deontology is not, does it? Isnt it a natural fallacy to say that an ethical philosophy is WRONG because it is an OUGHT (what SHOULD be possible) as opposed to an IS (what IS possible)? What does it mean if we cant claim that one theory is wrong and another right?
Kant and Mill are two brilliant individuals who both created their own philosophy on how to live the good life. They created their idea of the good life so someone might take on their philosophies and try to find happiness through them. One philosophy is not necessarily better than another; one may just make you happier or act more morally than another. Both deontology and utilitarianism have the potential to help one in their decision making processes and make one happy. However, you do have to choose one, but choosing the philosophy that makes the most sense for one to live by would come from the beliefs habituated in one by the people that raised them. If for instance I was raised by people who were always concerned more with the consequence of an action rather than why an action was chosen over, then Utilitarianism might make more sense for me to live by because some of the belief’s within the concept of utilitarianism have been habituated in me.
ReplyDelete