Kant vs. Mill: Comparing Moral Standing Theories

Key Concepts in Moral Philosophy

Hypothetical Imperative

Commands you don't have to follow. (Kant)

Categorical Imperative

Commands you have to follow. (Kant)

Pain and Pleasure (or Absence of Pain)

The key to happiness for Mill.

Rationality

Means/Ends Reasoning. (Kant)

Passions vs. Reason

Hume thinks humans act based on passions, not reason. "Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions."

Dignity

Things with moral standing have dignity. (Kant)

Means/Ends Reasoning

We use means to achieve ends. (Kant)

Error Theory

Mackie's version of Moral Skepticism.

Expressivism/Emotivism

Sentences using moral terms have no meaning (e.g., "lying is bad"). (Ayer)

Moral Standing

The quality that makes an entity worthy of moral consideration.

Thesis: Kant vs. Mill on Moral Standing

In this essay, I will evaluate the moral standing theories of Kant and Mill, explaining why I find Kant's view more convincing, despite my personal objections.

Kant's Theory of Moral Standing

Explanation: People have moral standing because they can engage in cognitively sophisticated acts independently.

• Advantage: Recognizes a moral agent's right to moral consideration by others and their own moral obligations.
• Disadvantage: Disregards the moral standing of animals and disabled humans. Has been used to excuse terrible acts.

Intrinsic Value: People

Only people have moral standing because they possess rationality. They can think about decisions and whether or not to act on them. Only humans can be moral because morality requires the ability to think outside your own desires, i.e., rationality.

Mill's Theory of Moral Standing

Explanation: Pleasure and the absence of pain are what confer moral standing. (Refer back to the definition of moral standing.)

• Advantage: Recognizes the moral standing of animals, disabled people, oppressed people, etc. "The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' but, 'Can they suffer?'"
• Disadvantage: The requirements for moral standing are so broad that they could apply to almost anything. People use their affinity for animals to justify giving them moral standards even if they don't deserve it.

Consistency in Moral Philosophy

Philosophers value consistency. If you argue that reasons don't matter and you can do whatever you want, even if morally inconsistent, you opt out of rational discourse altogether.