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"