Kant vs Mill

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Kant vs. Mill
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill had divergent views on the issue of ethical systems. According to O’Meara, Kant argued that the intentions of an individual are the key to moral judgment while Mill proposed that only the consequences of an action can determine its morality (16). I agree with Kant that the intentions should be the basis of judgment and not the effects. With good intentions, human beings will strive to deliver excellent results with their actions. However, if the consequences are undesirable, the individual who committed the act should not be harshly judged. A right person will always have the right intentions irrespective of the results.
Soldiers are not judged as being unethical even though they kill people during wars. The soldiers intended to protect civilians and the country. In fact, most states honor their soldiers as heroes even if the consequences of their actions is often death. On the other hand, a person who has evil intentions cannot be praised even if the result of the action is good. For example, an individual who tells a lie to steal money from a friend cannot be judged as ethical even when the stolen money is spent on good deeds. Therefore, even when the consequences of an adverse action are right, the person who did the act is still regarded as immoral.
In conclusion, when people have good intentions, their action will also be ethical as suggested by Immanuel Kant. Without good intentions, people will hide their evilness in their wrong actions.

The world will become a worse place because ethics will focus on results only as opposed to the means.
Works Cited
O’Meara, William. “The Aristotelian Principle in Mill and Kant.” Athens Journal of Humanities and Arts, vol 2, no. 1, 2015, pp. 9-18., Accessed 19 July 2018.