Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Compare and Contrast Essay

The theories put forward, by Kant and Mill deal with the moral qualities of choices or exercises. Although they atomic number 18 very unlike, none of the two theories shows concern in the faithfulness ethics on what re entirelyy constitutes a good human being. However, Kants theory is much deontological. This means that it locates the moral worth associated with an fill at heart the action itself. Therefore, the main concern is not in the consequences associated with the specific action. On a more specific note, Kants point of view is that it is contingent to have one duty or rule, which mickle be categorised/ characterized as being the categorical imperative. He arrived at three different kneadulations pertaining to this imperative (Kant & vitamin A Gregory, 1998).The most fundamental formulation is that if it is impossible for every(prenominal) human beings to commit the same set or sets of actions, then bear on action is immoral. This means that if one is a liar, he i s incapable of unbidden that every person lie because in this case the meaning of sexual morality may end up becoming incomprehensible. As a result, whatever advantage, which obtained by use of lies, can end up getting lost. The snatch imperative is a different way of underlining the golden rule. It states that if one is unavailing to will (desire) that a different person commit the same action on ones person, then the actual committing of the action or deciding mentally to do the same is an immoral endeavor.On the former(a) hand, we can take Mill as being more of a consequentialist. According to Mill, the outcomes determine the truth of any action (Kant & Gregory, 1998). Kant is of the credit that the good action is one, which is in line with our duty. This becomes known depending on the fact, which it apportions with the categorical imperative Mills beliefs make him a utilitarian. In his theory, goodness is located according to the happiness which it gives rise to. It i s worth noting, however, that both philosophers are very passionately interested in personal liberty for all the implicated individuals.Mills utilitarianism does not expect neither with the means nor with intentions. It is entirely with the results. Mills opinion was that all events outcomes could be measurable by use of units, which he referred to as utils. The units can be use to determine the existent to which an action was utilitarian. Mill argued that the higher the number of utils associated with an action portrayed how good an action was. Critics have pointed out that utilitarianism is not concerned about coming with rules to set up some form of a straw man. On the part of Mill (1998), he argues that utilitarianism is some form of a crude caricature act. This is the version, which the philosophers appear to be acquainted with. Further, Daniel Dennett has argued that it is not possible to do the calculations, as required by the utilitarianism theory only because the incide nts do not sum up as a nice value in terms of utility.Mills utilitarianism does not involve neither with the means nor with intentions. It is entirely with the results. He wishes to sideline himself from Kant by expressing that actions can lead to an outcome, but taking no credibility of the actions. On the early(a) hand, Kant takes responsibility of the action. Eventually, the two theories show similar concern in the virtue ethics on what really constitutes a good human being.ReferencesKant, I., & Gregory, M. J. (1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge, U.K.Cambridge University Press.Mill, J. S., & Crisp, R. (1998). Utilitarianism. Oxford Oxford University Press.Source document