Why utilitarianism is better than deontology
This paper puts two concepts that both tries to explain the good and right way to behave towards other people. The two concepts are utilitarianism concept which was developed by John Stuart Mill and deontology concept which was developed by Immanuel Kant. From their main point of view on what they believe in, there is an hint on what they believe individuals should behave towards each other. For instance, Kant’s deontology argues that an individual should do the right thing every time because that is what should be done. Further, his concept believes that, a person should do the right thing for it to only produce positive consequences. That highly contradicts Mill’s main ideology that an action can be regarded as either good or bad after its consequences has been felt or witnessed. By clearly looking into the ideas and how they affect how individuals interact with each other, you find that Mill’s idea gives more freedom of association. It gives a room between individuals to vent and see what works between them. Deontology restricts the freedom of association as it strictly advises that people should only do the right thing and it regards that to as what is morally accepted.
When Kant is trying to explain what he meant when he said that an action must be done for the sake of the law if it is morally good, he says that an action should not be done to someone else in order to impress one self. Giving and helping is a part of human co-existence and Kant believes that when you are helping other people, it should strictly be for the sake of them and not for the sake of one’s happiness. On the other hand, Mill believes that an action is right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it promotes the opposite of happiness. That directly contradicts Kant’s idea that an action done for the sake of a given person should be strictly to make them happy and not oneself. Logically, Kant means that a person would rather make other people happy and stay unhappy. That is the worst thing that can ever happen as the things we do to others is what makes us happy and no person who can be willing to make other people happy and remain unhappy. The best way to behave towards others is to make them happy always and also be happy yourself. That creates a balance of co-existence and everyone will feel accepted in the society. In that part of ideation between the two, I find Mill’s idea more practical and it drives more sense to human co-existence compared to Kant’s idea which limits the sharing of happiness. Life is about happiness and Mill’s idea stands out.
Kant’s idea on the level in which rules and regulations should be followed is so strict. He believes that rules should be followed to the later and that morality is dependent on individual’s obligation and duties. In one example where a given individual gives their mother a false excuse that they are having a stomach complication to skip a family dinner party in order to watch a new episode called “The Last Dance,” the two ideologies present different views. For Kant, it is a wrong and a dishonest thing to lie about anything because that is not morally upright. On the other hand, Mill believes that if the given person went to the party, they would be feeling miserable throughout the period because they will have missed the last episode. Moreover, Mill thinks that in any case, the mother could accept the person’s excuse no matter how it would be but if the excuse was about watching the new episode, the mother could feel upset to due individual’s absence. However, Mill notices that the lie leaves two parties happy and comfortable. The mother is happy her child didn’t miss the party because they wanted to, but because they were having a stomach discomfort. The individual is also happy they didn’t miss the new episode. By that, Mill believes that the right thing is what brings happiness to both sides but not what is morally upright. In this case scenario, you notice that Kant’s idea is so adamant and lacks a room for excuse. You would rather do what makes you uncomfortable just because it is what the society thinks is morally acceptable. I would go for Mill’s idea because it creates a room for a compromise. The main goal in any interaction between two people is to create happiness and a conducive environment between the two people. That is what exactly Mill vouches for and that will create a healthy interaction and relationship between individuals.
The two ideas also present their views on the rationality of an individual’s thinking. Kant argues that an idea is determined to be good or bad because of its goodwill or its good intention of doing it. On Mill’s side, an idea can only be classified to be either good or bad based on its consequences. In this instance, Mill reflects on a case scenario that involves doing an action which is having a pressure from own “gut” feeling. The case scenario involves a person involved in a messy breakup with his girlfriend and his guts tells him to key in the car and let it move. To Kant, doing such is some sort of goodwill to the individual doing it. It will help him cool his anger. His argument does not care about the consequences an action might likely cause but the goodwill it will bring to the individual involved in the action. Mill argues that if search feelings come to a responsible and a rational thinker, he would be able to notice that the action is awful and can lead to much damages than the selfish urge to cool tempers. Through that, it is clear that Mill vouches for doing an action but first looking at its repercussions. If an impact of an action is likely to yield negative results, then it is bad. In that instance, I support Mill’s idea and ignore Kant’s idea that will likely yield more conflict in such instances and that will affect the good and better way to behave towards other people.
Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill, presents the good and right way to live life. From its main point of argument that an action is regarded as good or bad based on its consequences, a sense of humanity and personality is put into a taste. This idea pushes people to only do what they may wish other people to do to them. No single person will want other people to do to them something that they feel will cause harm to them in future. That is what Mill tries to explain in his utilitarianism concept. Mill believes that a society does not need any rules and regulations to govern them as they should be governed by their own instincts to determine what is wrong and good.
However, Mill warns that what is good and wrong should not be driven by gut feeling. In that case, he presents a case scenario that involves a messy breakup and a man may feel within themselves to key in their girlfriend’s car and let it move alone. Mill rubbishes such an idea as he feels it is based on instincts and not reasons. He warns that in such case where a decision is as a result of instincts, it is likely to be awful and dangerous. Mill tries to explain the importance of individuals to be able to evaluate the consequences of a given action to determine whether it will be good or bad and being able to determine whether to execute the action or drop it. Through that, a better way to live life will be created and individuals will live in harmony and peace.
Lastly, Mill explains the greatest happiness principle which he states that an action is considered right in based on the way it produces happiness and wrong based on the way it produces the reverse of happiness. Mill explains the right thing as that which yields more contentment and positivity while the wrong thing is what yields the reverse of that. This presents the greatest principle that shows the right way to live life. If in a given society members believed in the utilitarian concept that an action is good if it promotes happiness to all parties, then the world would be a good place to live. People will be avoiding all actions that will cause fear, hatred, harm, and negativity and happiness will be the new routine that people will be living with. When the two concepts are put into comparison, a liberal minded person will regard utilitarianism as the best concept that is able to promote good and right way to live life.