Similarities of Kant and Mill's theories

Question

Similarities of Kant and Mill's theories

Answer 1

Both are vacuous - attempting to apply either theory ends in no clear prescription for action.

Kant's theory of ethics requires us to characterize an action and then apply his imperative. But any action can be characterized in any number of ways, and thus it is always possible to characterize an action in such a way that it passes Kant's test. Kant's theory is thus reconcilable with *any* behavior.

Mill's theory, on the other hand, requires that we be able to correctly conceive of all of the ramifications of an action, both now and in the future. Since this doesn't seem to be a readily available human capacity, the theory cannot be applied as offered.  

Answer 2

If you don't give mynameischristo best answer, I will cry. Nice way to summarize it, christo.

Answer 3

This question is quite broad for Answers - but I will try to be short.

Kant's moral theories are rule or maxim based: whatever one can rule as universal-law while avoiding contradiction is what one ought to do.

For instance, In circumstance C, if I ought to do action X, then if everyone did X in C, x would be logically-possible. Moreover, Kant's formulation was such that one's intentions for an action is what made the action right or wrong, as opposed to Consequentialism - which Mill was a form of this, a Utilitarian.

But Mill's theory of Rule Utilitarianism can be compared with Kan'ts Categorical Imperative in that both of them involve *ruling* a maxim that one ought to do in certain circumstances. What differs, however, is that Mill focuses on the consequences of an action, whereas Kant focuses on the intentions with an action.

So, there is some similarity, albeit a small one.