Good Will And The Categorical Imperative Analysis
Author, Immanuel Kant, in his article “The Good Will and the Categorical Imperative”, targeted mainly the idea of having a good will. What Kant meant by this exactly is that one must undergo good deeds for the sake of those deeds being good in and within themselves, not to gain any sort of award in return. Specifically, Kant argues that “[a] good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes, because of its fitness to attain some proposed end, but only because of its volition, that is, it is good in itself…” (394b). In simpler terms, having good will consists of putting others’ happiness and concerns before yours. Plus, the author stressed that the motives behind any good will must come from acknowledging our duty, rather than
…show more content…
For instance, one criticism against Utilitarianism that Mill addresses is the assumption that happiness is not a realistic or logical standard to achieve. Here, Mill defends Utilitarianism by stating that this theory’s definition of happiness does not indicate a perfect life with no ups and downs. Instead, it represents more of a stable life where “a few transitory pains” (15) exist, but is mostly filled with happiness. Another criticism that Mill shut down, was the one that accused this philosophy of being unchristian-like because it resolves around a person’s happiness and the consequences that bring the most pleasure. Mill’s response was that Utilitarianism, in fact, places the happiness of everyone whom it may concern above one’s own happiness. The author continues and even asserts that “[i]n the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utilitarianism. To do as you would have other do unto you, and to love your neighbor as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality” (18). Nevertheless, arguing that utilitarianism underlies some of the basics included in the Christian religion. Interestingly enough, an additional criticism of Utilitarian states that it is unfeasible because it demands quite the thought process and time in order to decide which actions will serve all the best. The author believes this is silly because mankind, for several centuries, has had more than enough time and experience to quickly distinguish the best decision amongst a set of options (21). Although these are only three of the criticisms that Mill tackles, he truly does defend Utilitarianism from every
For instance, one criticism against Utilitarianism that Mill addresses is the assumption that happiness is not a realistic or logical standard to achieve. Here, Mill defends Utilitarianism by stating that this theory’s definition of happiness does not indicate a perfect life with no ups and downs. Instead, it represents more of a stable life where “a few transitory pains” (15) exist, but is mostly filled with happiness. Another criticism that Mill shut down, was the one that accused this philosophy of being unchristian-like because it resolves around a person’s happiness and the consequences that bring the most pleasure. Mill’s response was that Utilitarianism, in fact, places the happiness of everyone whom it may concern above one’s own happiness. The author continues and even asserts that “[i]n the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utilitarianism. To do as you would have other do unto you, and to love your neighbor as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality” (18). Nevertheless, arguing that utilitarianism underlies some of the basics included in the Christian religion. Interestingly enough, an additional criticism of Utilitarian states that it is unfeasible because it demands quite the thought process and time in order to decide which actions will serve all the best. The author believes this is silly because mankind, for several centuries, has had more than enough time and experience to quickly distinguish the best decision amongst a set of options (21). Although these are only three of the criticisms that Mill tackles, he truly does defend Utilitarianism from every