Seokhee Lee

April 30, 2015

Philosophy 1000
Prof.
Kant and Mill
Before comparing, we need to know about Kant and Mill. Immanuel Kant was born
in East Prussia. He only interested in philosophy. He worked as professor for life. He wrote a
paper about logic and metaphysics. Even if he lived in poverty, philosophy was just his
interesting. He also wrote a philosophy of religion. But, Friedrich, a King of Prussia, issued
an imperial order about Kant of philosophy of religion. John Stuart Mill was born in London.
He was called a genius from early childhood. He studied a logic and economics when he was
young. He wrote a lot of book like on Liberty and Utilitarianism. When he enter the twilight
of his life, he engaged in politics. He argued the woman suffrage.
Rationalism of western philosophy is that people have a knowledge. The role of
experience just is that aroused an original knowledge. In contrast, Empiricism means that all
the knowledge can get from experience. It coincide to common sense, but it also can think
skepticism. Because, even if we are in same situation, my situation and other person situation
can differ. Also, if I have same situation, result can differ case by case. For example, when we
have final exam, we can get different result on every semester. We have same situation that is
final, but we get different score. Kant criticized rationalism and empiricism. And then he
synthesize two things and he get a result that people have form of awareness but, people have
to get content of awareness from experience.
Kant was influenced by the empiricism of Hume and the physics of Newton. He saw
the physical sciences, in contrast to the rationalist metaphysics, they were actually making
progress. They were making discoveries, and building a knowledge system that accurately

describes the world of our sensory perceptions. Rationalist metaphysics, however, sank into
systems that philosophers were fighting. It did not provide new knowledge, and only led to
unacceptable conclusions, since the absolute monism of Spinoza. Kant was also influenced
by Hume's arguments against the rationalist metaphysics appeared to show that we could not
build universal laws that could explain all the events of the world of our sensory perceptions
before any knowledge of this world. Hume also argued that many of the doctrines held by the
rationalists are not our sensory perceptions reveal our imagination any of these phenomena.
These doctrines were, rather, the creation of the imagination by which these doctrines
imposed connoisseurs of reality in order to make sense of what sensory impressions
transmitted knowledgeable experts.
Kant defends the rationalist position that all knowledge is produced by reason, nor
defend the empiricist point that all knowledge is produced by the experience view. He agrees
with the empiricist that all knowledge begins with experience and the position that there can
be no innate ideas in the mind before the experience, but does not agree that this position is
consistent with the claim that the experience should be the sole source of all knowledge.
Instead, it explains why and experience can be combined to produce valid knowledge.
In the transcendental doctrine of elements, Kant speaks of transcendental aesthetics,
space and time, the transcendental analytic and transcendental dialectic. The transcendental
analytic includes analytical concepts and analytical principles. The transcendental dialectic is
the logic of pure reason, which can produce momentous. According to Kant, the
transcendental dialectic includes three kinds of dialectical arguments: first, it is fallacies.
Second, it is the contradictions. Finally, it is ideals. Each of these dialectical arguments
reveals that intractable conflicts can be created when the principles of pure beyond the sphere
of possible experience understanding apply. Therefore, the transcendental dialectic shows that
the misuse of reason can lead to philosophical error.

Analytic judgments are also to be distinguished from synthetic judgments. An

analytical affirmative judgment is one in which a predicate is asserted to belong to a subject,
and wherein the predicate is contained by, or inherently belongs to the concept of the subject.
A synthetic affirmative judgment is one in which a predicate is stated to belong to a subject,
and wherein the predicate is not inherently belong to the concept of the subject. Analytic
judgments can explain a topic, or break down into its predicates, but not add to issue any
predicates that are not contained in the concept of the subject. Synthetic judgments, on the
other hand, can increase a subject by adding new predicates the concept of the subject.
According to Kant, all analytic judgments are a priori. Synthetic judgments can be a
posteriori or a priori. Priori judgments can be analytical or synthetic. A posteriori judgments
are always synthetic. According to Kant, a priori synthetic truths include the truths of
mathematics and the truths of the natural sciences. All mathematical judgments are synthetic,
and all appropriate mathematical judgments are a priori.
Topic of John Stuart mill is utilitarianism. Before knowing about that, we need to
know about Jeremy Bentham. He was philosopher, making the utilitarianism. The moral
theory of Bentham was founded on the assumption that these are the consequences of human
actions that count in assessing their merits and that the type of result that matters for human
happiness is only the achievement of pleasure and evasion pain. He said the hedonistic value
of any human action is easily calculated taking into account the intensity of feeling your
pleasure, the duration of that pleasure, certainly and how quickly followed in the
implementation of the action, and how likely it is to produce security benefits and avoid
collateral damage.
Utilitarianism of Mill is a comprehensive explanation of utilitarian moral theory. In
an effort to respond to criticism of the doctrine, Mill advocated not only the basic principles
of Jeremy Bentham, but also offers a number of significant improvements in its structure,

meaning and application. Although the progress of moral philosophy has been limited by
their endless disputes about reality and nature of the highest good, Molino assumed from the
beginning, everyone can agree that the consequences of human actions contribute
significantly to its moral value.
But he did not agree that all differences between the pleasures can be quantified. In
view of Mill, some types of pleasure that humans also differ in qualitative aspects, and only
those who have experienced the pleasure of both types are competent judges of their relative
quality. This sets the moral courage to promote greater intellectual pleasures between sentient
beings, even when their momentary intensity can be lower than that of below alternative
pleasures. Still, Molino assume that the positive achievement of happiness is often difficult,
so often are morally justified in seeking primarily to reduce the total amount of pain
experienced by sentient beings affected by our actions. Pain or pleasure sacrifice is justified
in view of the mill only when directly in the highest good of all.
Against those who argue that the utilitarian theory unjustified demands of individual
agents who dedicate their primary energies to calculate cold heart and endless anticipated
effects of their actions, Mill offered a meaningful title. Precisely because we do not have the
time to accurately calculate in all cases, it is assumed, correctly we let our actions be guided
by moral rules most of the time. Partly anticipating the later distinction between act and rule
utilitarianism, Mill said high moral, at least make an important early role in providing a
complete guide service everyday moral life. Finally, however, he noted that the value of each
particular action, especially in difficult or controversial cases-is determined by reference to
the principle of own use.
Mill identifies the pleasure or happiness as the highest good of humanity. Kant
argues that morality should be defined in terms of duty. We must act not only in accordance
with duty, but for the sake of duty. Kant believes that moral principles are rational principles.

Moreover, while Mill emphasizes the good consequences of an act, Kant holds that certain
actions, like truth says are good in themselves, regardless of the possible consequences of
telling the truth.
Kant argues required ethics in his book. According to Kant, he said, Act so that the
maxim of thy will can always at the same time hold good as a principle of universal
legislation.". It means that we cannot be judge ethics by result. In the sentence, maxim means
principal of peoples act. So, it also means people have to act without any unpleasantness. In
contrast, Mill argues rule-utilitarianism. He defined the moral that it is the greatest happiness
of the greatest number. It means that people work for the common good, it is moral.
We can criticize the two theory. If we criticize about Kant, his theory cannot apply to
our life. In other word, it is unadaptable. In contrast, if we criticize about Mill, his theory
cannot be judged size of common good. Also, each person have a different set of values about
life. So, it is not sure that if people act for common good expect their happiness.