Term assignment

Mill vs. Kant: Ethics Applied to Modern Genetic Testing

Ms. Jane Doe

Houston Community College

PHIL 2306 – Introduction to Ethics

Spring 2018, TTH 5:30 p.m. – 6:50 p.m.

Professor Joshua Ellery

May 2, 2018

*******************************

*** SAMPLE TERM PAPER ***

*******************************

TO BE USED ONLY AS A "GUIDE" FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES!

YOUR PAPER SHOULD STRICTLY FOLLOW ALL OF THE INSTRUCTIONS AND

REQUIREMENTS IN THE "TERM PAPER ASSIGNMENT" DOCUMENT FOR YOUR

CLASS!!! (E.G., WORD COUNT, ETC.)

Mill vs. Kant

Page 1

Early 1800’s utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, and early 1700’s empiricist, Immanuel Kant are

both notable philosophers who developed their own unique ethical theories. This paper will

accomplish several things: First, it will examine the reasoning behind each philosopher’s system

of ethics and compare and contrast the theories of each man. Then, it will analyze how Mill and

Kant's philosophies would apply to the modern-day ethical issue of genetic testing on unborn

human embryos. Finally, I will argue that Mill's approach to genetic testing is superior to Kant's

because it is more pragmatic and better appeals to our common sense notions of justice.

John Stuart Mill is best known for his contributions to the theory of Utilitarianism, which

was founded by Jeremy Bentham (Macleod 1). The foundation of utilitarianism is the following

two key principles: The Utility Principle and The Greatest Happiness Principle. The Utility

Principle states, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as

they tend to promote unhappiness” (Mill 24). So, for Mill, actions are morally right so long as

they increase happiness and avoid unhappiness/pain. The Greatest Happiness Principle states,

“Those actions are right that produce the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people”

(Mill 24). So, for Mill, in choosing between two possible actions, we ought to choose the one

that maximizes happiness (utility) for the greatest number of people. Mill also adds that there

are qualitative aspects of happiness such as “higher” and “lower” pleasures (Mill 47). Higher

pleasures are those that are related to intellectual pursuits and are more valuable than lower

pleasures, which are related to physical desires. Mill believes that higher pleasures are so

valuable that they are even more desirable than a greater number of lower pleasures. So, Mill's

ultimate position is that we should always seek pleasure over pain and also to maximize higher

pleasure over lower pleasures at all costs (Mill 26).

Mill vs. Kant

Page 2

Applying the Utility Principle and Greatest Happiness Principle, a utilitarian faced with a

moral decision between two choices would proceed as follows: First, he would calculate the total

amount of happiness each choice would produce for each individual impacted by that decision.

Then, he would choose that action that maximizes happiness for the greatest amount of people,

irrespective of how that action impacts a particular individual. Since Mill is not interested in

how the moral action impacts one particular individual, utilitarianism is known as an "agent

neutral" theory (Macleod 1). According to Mill, evaluating moral choices within this construct

and always choosing that action which maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people

will promote the “greater good” for society (Macleod 2).

Immanuel Kant, a rationalist, made significant contributions to metaphysics and ethics.

He is probably best known for articulating what is known as the “Categorical Imperative”, an

absolute command of reason that commands us to follow our moral duty irrespective of our own

self-interest (Kant 67). In articulating his “Categorical Imperative”, Kant follows a series of rules

referred to as “grounding” which begins the groundwork of ethics. Major concepts include the

idea that the only unconditionally good thing in the world is a good will, a good will is a will that

acts from duty rather than in accordance to duty, and an action must be done from duty to have

moral worth (Johnson 1). Kant develops his ethical reasoning by taking a maxim, or an “if/then”

statement, and running it through a series of infallible tests to determine if an action is morally

right or wrong. There are two of these tests that he defines as “formulations” of his Categorical

Imperative– the "Universal Law" formulation and the "Means/End" formulation.

The Universal Law formulation states that a maxim is morally right only if you can will it

to become a universal law (Kant 102). So, for Kant, the only actions that are moral are those

actions that we would be comfortable "universalizing," meaning they would apply to everyone

Mill vs. Kant

Page 3

each-and-every-time that particular issue or situation occurred. For example, Kant famously

argues that lying is universally prohibited. That is, telling the truth is something that we would

want to "universalize" and make applicable in all situations since we ourselves would not want to

be lied to. The other formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative is the Means/End

formulation, which states that we must always treat ourselves and others as a “means” rather than

an “end” (Kant 125). So, for Kant, an action can never be morally right if it means treating your

own self or another merely as a means to achieve some stated goal. Kant believes these two

formulations of his Categorical Imperative are functionally equivalent, meaning that a maxim

cannot fail one formulation without also failing the other.

Comparing Mill and Kant's theories yields some interesting findings. While Mill bases

his ethical theories around consequences and emotion, Kant bases his ethical theories around

personal intent and rationality. According to Mill, an action is determined as right or wrong

based on the effects it has on others and how happy an action can make a person. The Utility

Principle is a quantitative distinction that supports this argument and sides with those actions that

produce higher levels of happiness. Kant would say an action is right if and only if it is

performed from a self-recognized moral duty. The core of Mill’s moral code is based on emotion

from happiness while Kant comes to conclusions from logic and one’s own conscience.

It can become cumbersome to determine how each philosopher would determine what is

morally right or wrong on complex ethical issues. Mill approaches ethics differently for each

unique situation as a result of his consequentialist Greatest Happiness Principle and Utility

Principle. According to Mill, it is possible to have the same issue at hand and come out with a

different result depending on external factors (MacLeod). Kant approaches every situation

exactly the same regardless of how complicated the situation may be (Johnson 2). Kant will have

Mill vs. Kant

Page 4

the same result every time regardless of who, when, and where this is happening. John Stuart

Mill comes to conclusions based on past experiences and natural responses while Immanuel Kant

relies solely on logic, setting aside sensory experiences to come to a conclusion.

Although these philosophers differ in many ways, they can be similar when it comes to

their goals. Both men aim to create a better society. The Greatest Happiness promotes society by

prioritizing happiness and higher pleasures above all else. A more positive, higher regarded, and

intellectually fit society will prevail. The Means-Ends formulation puts others first in every

situation. By treating others with respect, we could create what Kant refers to as a “Kingdom of

Ends” similar to a utopia (Kant 130). Both philosophers are inclusive and do not discriminate

against or hold anyone to a higher esteem when determining what is ethical. When calculating

happiness, Mill considers the happiness of all people, total groups, regardless of social or

economic status. Kant follows the Universal Law formulation and does not consider anything

ethical that does not meet the requirements of universalization. Kant’s Categorical Imperative is

intended and commanded to be followed by all people. Both philosophers have a will to better

the world and put laws in place to keep their philosophical approaches fair and universal.

We can now clearly see how each philosophy applies to a common ethical issue. For

example, when it comes to genetic testing and modification, we can see how both Mill and Kant

would evaluate the topic. First, Mill would consider all aspects of the situation and how the

consequences affect all others. Doctors and practices may be inclined to perform testing and

genetic modification on living embryos. Mill would argue this is morally right because in doing

this, doctors would be able to retrieve new information about genetic diseases and disorders that

could save millions of lives. This helps the greater good of society and follows the Utility

Principle and Greatest Happiness Principles so long as it maximizes overall happiness. By saving

Mill vs. Kant

Page 5

more lives after cures and treatments are found, overall societal happiness would be increased.

New scientific discoveries would be found and shared, thereby increasing higher pleasures.

There would also be a loss of pain and suffering and a gain of life and an infinite number of

positive unintended consequences of those saved lives.

On the other hand, Kant would say genetic testing on unborn embryos is morally wrong.

First, Kant would say that testing on the embryos violates the Means/End Formulation because

we would be treating the embryos merely as a means to advance our scientific research. Since

we are merely using the embryos as a "means" to that stated end, Kant would say doing this

research would be immoral. Furthermore, Kant would also say that we could not universalize

this action because we would not desire for ourselves or the unborn embryos of our loved ones to

be sacrificed against our will, even if doing so might help the general welfare of humanity at

large. Since this action fails the Universal Law and Means/End formulation, Kant would say it is

our moral duty to protect the human embryos and find a more ethical way to do our research.

Between the two theories, I firmly believe that Mill's approach is the best. First, Mill's

utilitarianism is more practical and more easily applied to the issue of genetic testing on human

embryos than Kant's rigid Categorical Imperative. Common sense tells us that by allowing this

research to proceed, we will undoubtedly discover new scientific advancements which will

increase the common good more than not allowing the research. If we allow Kant's theories to

control, however, we may never make those same scientific discoveries and humanity as a whole

will suffer. Moreover, I do not believe that Kant's theories apply in this particular moral

situation. Personally, I believe that early human embryos are little more than collections of

cellular material, a far cry from being a full-fledged human being. As such, these embryos do

not have a same moral status as a human being. Therefore, Kant cannot argue that conducting

Mill vs. Kant

Page 6

genetic testing on human embryos amounts to using it merely as a means to an end. By analogy,

do I mistreat my dishwasher when I use it merely as a means to clean my dirty dishes? At some

point, those human embryos have the potential to become full-grown human beings, but that

potential should not prevent us from doing valuable scientific research.

Mill vs. Kant

Page 7

Works Cited

Johnson, Robert. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Stanford University, 23 Feb. 2004. Web. 27 Apr. 2018

<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/>

Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University

Press, 1998.

Macleod, Christopher. “John Stuart Mill.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Stanford University, 25 Aug. 2016. Web. 27 Apr. 2018

<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/>

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Liberal Arts Press, 1957.

Word Count = 1,852