Major Ethical Frameworks: Mill, Kant, Habermas

Utilitarianism: Happiness and the Common Good

Utilitarianism, closely related to ethical theories like eudaimonia and hedonism, defends the human purpose of happiness or pleasure. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) considered that actions and regulations should be judged by the Principle of Utility, or the Principle of Greatest Happiness. This is a teleological ethics, valuing actions as a means to an end, based on the consequences that result from them: an action is good when its consequences are useful (bringing us closer to happiness), and it is not bad if its implications do not take us away from happiness or pleasure. The principle of morality is, therefore, the greatest happiness (pleasure) for as many living beings as possible.

According to Mill, the main difference between classic utilitarianism and hedonism (like Epicurus') is that the former goes beyond the merely personal: it does not understand happiness as merely personal pleasure or interest, but rather as what is most beneficial for the largest number of people. Pleasure is considered a common good.

Kantian Ethics: Duty and the Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant proposed a new formal moral approach: it is clear that human beings wish for happiness, and to achieve it, they must use reason in a prudential and calculating way. However, reason also provides us with moral laws that we must obey, even if they do not directly lead to our happiness.

Our reason gives us laws that are expressed as Categorical Imperatives: unconditional commands, not hypothetical ones contingent on desiring happiness (this is the domain of Practical Reason). This type of imperative does not prescribe a specific end, but rather dictates *how* we should act, serving as a guide to discern moral rules from non-moral ones. The standard for morality is established by the possibility of universalizing a rule: only those rules that can be applied universally without contradiction are truly moral.

Discourse Ethics: Consensus and Ideal Speech

As an heir to and continuation of Kantian ethics, Discourse Ethics, or Dialogical Ethics, is formal and procedural. It does not provide specific rules, but rather a procedure to determine which norms are ethically valid.

Jürgen Habermas (b. 1929) considers Kantian ethics optimal but believes it has a defect: it addresses rationality as a monologue, when in fact, dialogue should be the moral standard. Habermas considers a norm accepted by a community through dialogue to be valid, provided participants maintain their rights and relationships of freedom and equality in the dialogue. For Habermas, only norms accepted by consensus in an ideal speech situation are truly valid.