@@@@@@@@

Student’s Name
PHIL 1213
Final Exam
December 6, 2016
Kant’s Versus Mill’s Morality Theories
Immanuel Kant’s major work was the ‘Metaphysics of Morals.” According to him, emotions and desires are conscience driven. The actions that one engages in must be universal so that they can be classified as immoral or moral (Kant, Wood, and Schneewind 93). Kant’s moral philosophy was based on deontological concepts in that he argued that to act in a way that would be considered morally right, one must act from duty. For example, gaining pleasure from watching someone suffer makes the action ethically wrong. In summary, Kant’s views as defined by his categorical imperative concept holds that one should act only according to a maxim that you would readily accept as a universal law. One should also act in a way that treats humanity as both a means and an end. John Mill’s greatest theory was the Utilitarianism theory of morality. According to this theory, the moral worth or usefulness of an action relies on the pleasure and gratification from the action (Mill 127). For example, if the beating of someone ensures that the community lives in peace, this act would be considered moral. This essay compares and contrasts the two philosophical views. It analyzes how each defines the reaction towards a moral dilemma that is identified in the essay. The dilemma in question is from John Eyre by Charlotte Bronte. According to Kant’s theory, the protagonists in the story were morally wrong.
Jane Eyre is based on characters evaluating their consciences on facing moral dilemmas.

Saint John, Rochester, and Jane all face moral dilemmas throughout the story. For example, Saint John has decided to devote his life as a missionary. He, therefore, would like to marry a wife would fit well as a missionary; something that he sees in Jane. He is in love with Rosamond Oliver but feels that she would not make a good missionary wife and therefore he does not wish to marry her. Jane, on the other hand, sees the appeal in a missionary life but does not have any love for John. Jane also experiences moral dilemma when Rochester asks to marry her as he was already married to Bertha Mason. She loved him but this situation complicated matters as others would have seen it as morally wrong. Rochester argued that he had been forced by his father marry to marry her only to get her family’ money. She also acted in weird ways leading to the loss of love between the couple. Critics would, however, argue that Bertha was not of sound mind and therefore did not know what she was doing. Jane finally decided to marry Rochester.
According to the deontological concept advanced by Kant, Jane was morally wrong to marry Rochester considering that he was married. Bertha, the husband’s wife did not even understand what was going on. They were, therefore, doing things behind her back and without her knowledge which was not right. Saint John was also supposed to marry Rosamond as it was his duty to do so. This is because the two had a feeling of love for each other. It did not matter what were the consequences of this marriage to the missionary work. According to the deontological concept, morality is simply a matter of duty. One should do what is right to do and shun from engaging in activities that he is not supposed to do. These activities do not depend on their perceived consequences (Smith 359). Kant argued that it was the motives of the action’s doer that made it right or wrong and not the effects of the actions. Kant further goes to suggest that something is good when it is good without qualification as well as intrinsically good. According to him, those things that are regarded as right such as pleasure, intelligence and perseverance are either inherently not good or not good without qualification.
On the other hand, according to the Utilitarianism theory advocated for by John Mill, Jane’s, St. John’s and Rochester’s action were morally right. This is because as per the theory, the moral worth of the action depends on the satisfaction, pleasure, and fulfillment derived from the action (Baujard 5). If stealing helps you to pay your neighbor’s debt and from this stop quarrels and disagreements with him and therefore gain harmony, then it is justified. This theory is derived from consequentialism which holds that the effects of an action should be regarded as the only standard of wrong and right.
The difference between the two theories is that Kant views morality as humanity based while Mill suggests that morality is a situation driven force which is not based on cognitive factors. While Kant disregards emotions by suggesting that they do not contribute to what is right or wrong, Mill holds that emotions are a person’s driving force to what is bad or good. Kant’s theory would be considered as more acceptable as the consideration of what a decision might cause leads to a conscious mind that leads to good behavior. According to Botros, accepting Mill’s proposition might give rise to the suggestion that murder is morally right if we seek pleasure from the action (Botros 148). The theory would also lead to a situation where no one would be punished for their actions as they would all claim to have sought pleasure and gratification from their actions (Freiman 250-269). Considering this view, the protagonists in the dilemma case were therefore morally wrong.
Works Cited
Baujard, Antoinette. “Utilitarianism And Anti-Utilitarianism”. SSRN Electronic Journal n. pag. Web.
Botros, Sophie. Hume, Reason And Morality. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 2006. Print.
Freiman, Christopher. “Utilitarianism And Public Justification”. Journal of Social Philosophy 44.3 (2013): 250-269. Web.
Kant, Immanuel, Allen W Wood, and J. B Schneewind. Groundwork For The Metaphysics Of Morals. 1st ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Print.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. 1st ed. Raleigh, N.C.: Alex Catalogue. Print.
Smith, Michael. “DEONTOLOGICAL MORAL OBLIGATIONS AND NON-WELFARIST AGENT-RELATIVE VALUES”. Ratio 24.4 (2011): 351-363. Web.