Hey guys. I decided to take a Moral Reasoning class this semester and I am so swamped! Philosophy is a very hard thing to grasp! I’ve been reading Kant’s “Grounding for the metaphysics of morals” and Mill’s “Utilitarianism”. However, I am quite confused by many things. Partly because I’m only a college freshman, and partly because I party too much. wink. I was wondering if some of you people can put some incite on a subject. Well, here goes, I see that Kant says that moral principles cannot be based on experience while Mills bases his moral principle on experience. Why do they take different positions towards experience? Also, why does this result in moral principles?
I was asked this in class and embarrassed when I couldn’t answer it. Turns out no one in the class could. Must be hard, or we must be dumb. Could people help answer this question?
To put it very generally, Kantian ethics are all about intentions, whereas Utilitarian ethics are all about consequences.
They take different positions on experience because Kant attempts to ground morality a priori, not posterior. He starts by making a distinction between phenomena and ‘thing-in-itself’. Phenomena is the ever changing character of human and worldly activity, henced no static morality can be grounded in it, but the ‘thing-in-itself’ never changes, it is static forever. So Kant attempts to ground a static conception of morality in the ‘thing-in-itself’, hence his categorical imperative. So when acting morally it is about the intentions of acting out the categorical imperative.
Mill, on the other hand, relies on empirical data to ground morality, thus it is forever changing depending on the circumstances of the issue in question. So acting morally means to act as to achieve the desired consequences of the issue at hand.
If i were you,i would go to Hume first and then skip Kant,then read J.S.Mill “System of Logic”.Before you read Hume “Treatie of Human Nature”,i would recommend to read all of Aristotle Topics,De Interpretatione,posterior analytics and other works concerning rhetorics and logic.After you read Mill,then go on to Frege and many logical positivist authors.Trust me,it will save you from confusing empiricism and rationalism.Unless you are somewhat opposed to empiricism,then you should not study philosophy.
Think of the issue of Clinton and Monica. A kantian would seek to expose Clinton’s intentions, i.e. is it ethical for him to enage in ‘sexual relations’ with someone other than his wife? Whereas a Utilitarian would look at the consequences of the issue, i.e. the media frenzy, impact on the nation and his wife etc.
I have to agree with you on what an Utilitarian would do in this predicament but i have to concur of what i think a Kantian position would be something of setting something of an universal creed based on the consequences of infedelity in a public life.A Kantian President would probably say this:“If i committ adultry which my position as an influential stateman who is obligated to promote virtue, then it is impractical to promote infedelity based on my position in office which will in fact only in consequence will everyone else in being insecure of committment to abstain infidelity to its partners.If my choice to promote marriage before being elected to office,then it is what ought to be in consequence that i have to maintain this as a will toward the community.”-meaning-Marrige as something of a principle to forever fidelity between partners.
