Kant vs. Mill

In both conflicting theories of judging moralty, intent vs. consequence, both have flaws but one has a stronger foundation.  Kant’s theory of intent will judge someone immoral if the person did not wish to committ a good act.  Mill only judges a person to be immoral if the consequence of an action decreases overall happiness.  Based on kant’s dedicaton to duty and self-love, the decision making process lies within the reasoning or intent behind a particular decision.  Mill believed that the consequence determined the morality of the person after the action.  I would like to present an example that challenges both theories.  Two people plan a bank robbery with a driver waiting outside in the getaway vehicle.  The first person uses the need to feed a family as his basis of reason.  This reason would be addresses by Kant’s theory of best intentions to feed a family by robbing those with more money.  The second person is a successful business woman on an ego trip and wants the adrenaline rush and is the basis of her robbery of these innocent people, patrons or employees.  Her reasoning is the worst kind, but falls into the Utilitarianism category of not increasing overall happiness, but expediency.  So all three get away with their identities concealed forever and are left with the memories of what they did.  Kant’s theory would present a level of understanding for a desperate need.  Mill’s theory would not agree with the woman on an ego trip because she decided to rob a bank for her own personal gain and has abandoned the principles of Utilitarianism, which include not increasing overall happiness and inflicting pain from fear of death.  Mill’s theory is hard to determine unless the action has an explanation. Kant’s theory is just as difficult to read, but actions speak louder than words.

Advertisement