Kant or Mill?

[brightlotusmoon]

After seeing "Matrix Reloaded", this question has been bugging me because I'm going to have to apply it to the novel in order to make the story have more punch. Philosophy majors, listen:

Which one said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? It was Mill, wasn't it? Utilitarianism? "The greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people"? And Kant had the idea of "individual happiness for its own end", right?

I have this idea that most people prefer Utilitarianism over Kantian philosophy. It bugs me, because wouldn't a Kantian be more likely to follow his emotions and instincts, be more self-serving? Utilitarians would rather obey the law of the land, the cry of the masses, right?

Let's just give my favorite dilemma example: You're standing in a room. There are two exits. One door leads to the salvation of the entire world, but it would mean certain death for your lover, the person you would give your life for, the only thing that matters to your emotional self. The other door leads to that lover and the chance to save him/her, but in doing so, you would sacrifice the entire world and wind up with nothing but your love. You would have followed your heart, but you would have gone against everything you know as far as duty, honor, and judgment.

So: Save the world or save your lover? Follow your head or follow your heart? Which one is Kant and which one is Mill?

Comments

You are essentially right...

[lupercal.livejournal.com]

but in actuality it's not quite as clear cut as that. But I think you could get away with using those standpoints in a novel;

Kant's main points for the Categorical Imperative are;

Universal Law

"Act only on maxims which you can at the same time want to be universal laws"

The End In Itself

"Treat other people as ends in themselves, never merely as means to ends"


Mills's Act Utilitarianism is basically;

"Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness"

Re: You are essentially right...

[brightlotusmoon.livejournal.com]

Yah, but that still doesn't solve my problem entirely. Just because utilitarianism says, "make everyone happy" doesn't mean you'd be doing the right thing. By saving your lover, would you make everyone happy? No, you'd piss everyone off because now the world is going to end. But you'd make yourself happy, and your lover would be happy (albeit a little annoyed because now the world will end). So it's not everyone's happiness-- so it's not a Utilitarian view. Right? It's Kantian. I'm confused.

Re: You are essentially right...

[lupercal.livejournal.com]

Just because utilitarianism says, "make everyone happy" doesn't mean you'd be doing the right thing.

Well, if you were a Utilitarian, obviously the right thing (from your perspective) would be the saving of the world. It's the fact you are saying Kant is directly opposed to that that falls over. Yes there have been loads of debates over the Kant/Mill-Bentham division, but I'm not so sure a Kantian would advotacte destorying the world to save your True Love. Why? Because Kant basically says an action needs to be "of itself objectively necessary, without regard to any other end." Surely in the pursuit of a universal law, it could be argued that you would rather everyone choose the world over their own love. Kant puts reason first.

Assessing moral issues ought to be defined in terms of the acts themselves, set apart from the consequences, however;

If I had lied in order to protect a Jew during the holocaust then I am not accepting consequence over duty (the duty not to lie). Instead, I am maintaining a higher duty to preserve human life. The former duty (the duty not to lie) is not being ignored but, rather, beaten by this greater need. So if you see love as the greatest need, when removed from conseqence, you could contest that saving your partner is the "right" choice..

But...just because something isn't Utilitarian doesn't necessarily make it Kantian. Damn it's been too long since I thought about all this... I believe I am just muddying the waters further for you.. :)