This week
in class we discussed how John Stuart Mill differs from Emmanuel Kant. Kant
believes that our actions determine whether or not we are considered a good
person whereas Mill believes that the consequences that come from the actions
that we take determine whether or not we are good. When in class, we discussed
whether or not Mill would see sacrificing a human to the gods as just. Take the
Aztecs for example. The Aztecs would sacrifice humans so that they would have a
good harvest. Would Mill see this as a just act even though killing a human is
obviously not just?
Mill would see this as a just act
because even though the killing of a human is not just, the happiness of a
whole nation of people is brought from this. Mill wants the greatest amount of
happiness for the greatest amount of people. One person is unhappy from this
decision, yet hundreds of others are brought some sort of comfort. The
sacrifice would bring comfort and hope to the Aztec people, and because of
this, the crops would be better taken care of. In contrast, Kant would believe
that this is an unjust act. These actions would break the categorical
imperative. Kant says that if this is broken, despite the outcome of the
actions being positive, morally wrong decisions have been made. The killing of
a human as sacrifice for gods would be wrong in Kant’s eyes. This relates to
the effect of prayer on a sick patient. If several people pray for the sick
patient, his or her attitude and hopes would be more positive. This positivity
and comfort would give the sick patient a better chance to recover, just like
the positivity of a sacrifice to the gods would make the members of the Aztec
community take better care of the crops. I believe that even though the crops
may be better after the sacrifice, the killing of a human is never justifiable.
I also agree that Mill would side with the Aztecs doing good. The most amount of people are being pleased, and that is exactly what Mill said he wanted. Good argument!
ReplyDeleteYou brought up a good point in your second paragraph when you mention how Kant would see it as unjust because they're killing someone, which is unjust, even though they are doing it to the greater good's benefit. Kant of course would recommend not killing them, but does that mean that by not not killing someone, subsequently dooming crops for the year's harvest, you are knowingly causing harm to a large group of people? so knowing that by not killing one, you possibly kill everyone which is also immoral?
ReplyDeleteIt looks like you understand Mill. I agree that Mill would side with the Aztecs because he was bringing happiness to the greatest amount of people. While Kant would say not kill them because it the unjust thing to do as well as that in killing them you would make it a universal law to kill people if you find your self in a similar situation in the future.
ReplyDeleteAs we talked about in class, I am not sure Mills would see this as a good thing. Just because someone says that sacrifice is good, doesn't mean it is. Like when your parents say "if your friend said he could fly and jumped of a building, would you?" (maybe not everyone's parents said this..). My problem with Mills, is that hindsight is 20/20. So at what point do you say that this is the ripple of this consequence and everything else would have happened anyway? If because the Aztecs sacrificed and someone learned about it in school, then went on to fight the death penalty, this person would be good and that would be a positive consequence.
ReplyDelete