Question

Kant argues that his moral theory is the very antithesis of utilitarianism, holding that right actions do not depend in the least on consequences, the production of happiness, or the desires and needs of human beings. For Kant, the core of morality consists of following a rational and universally applicable moral rule—the Categorical Imperative—and doing so solely out of a sense of duty. An action is right only if it conforms to such a rule, and we are morally praiseworthy only if we perform it for duty's sake alone. a. How does Kant's moral theory differ from Mill's utilitarianism? b. How are we supposed to apply Kant's means–end principle to situations involving a lying promise? c. According to Kant, what is the only thing that is good without qualification?

Answer 1

a. Kant's moral theory is fundamentally different from Mill's utilitarianism:

Kant's ethics are deontological, focusing on duty and the moral worth of actions. He believes that actions are right or wrong based on whether they conform to rational and universal moral rules, regardless of the consequences.

In contrast, Mill's utilitarianism is consequentialist, where actions are judged by the overall happiness they produce. The consequences determine the morality of an action.

b. Kant's means-end principle means we should treat people as ends in themselves, not just as a means to an end. In the case of a lying promise, Kant would say it's wrong because it treats someone as a tool to achieve your goal rather than respecting their intrinsic worth and autonomy.

c. Kant believes the only thing that is unconditionally good is a "good will." This means having a will or intention to do what's morally right out of a sense of duty, regardless of the consequences. Other things, like talents or happiness, are only good if they're used in line with a good will.

Step-by-step explanation: