Kant And Mill Argumentative Analysis

Throughout our lives we have always tried to come up with different solutions to solve several different problems. As a kid a common solution we always had but could never do is to blow things up. If we could just totally get rid of our problem, then that certain problem will never arise again. This dilemma is still a problem in today’s modern society and if we should just send a nuclear missile to deal with our enemies. Yes, this would be a quick and easy solution to the problem, but the real issue with that is the morality behind it. If we decide to send a nuclear missile, we can only imagine the millions of innocent lives that are lost just because we wanted a quick and easy solution. Kant and Mill would both have different solutions to this ethical dilemma because Kant would say to not drop the nuke and blow up the problem at hand because it is unmoral, and it cannot become a universal law. While Mill would say if it brought you higher pleasure to make the decision to nuke the problem then you should do it and if it did not bring you pleasure then you should not. To begin, Kant would say to not nuke the problem because it is not moral and would not be a universal law because the world would be in shambles if this were one. Kant claims that every person has a will and that the will they have will help them make a choice that acts in the accordance of good (Kant 325). In this situation, our wills would say that nuking a place would be a bad decision because we would feel bad for killing innocent people who did not deserve it and people who were just bystanders. Kant would say that this action is categorical and say that the action is good as an end in itself (Kant 326). This means that the decision to not nuke the problem and save millions of lives is a better end result then it would be to nuke the problem and kill millions of people. In summary, Kant would say to not nuke the problem at hand because it is unmoral and cannot be a universal law. Equally as important, Mill would say that nuking the problem at hand would be okay if it brought you higher pleasure, but if it does not bring you pleasure or happiness then you should not do it. He claims: We are guided in our choices by the effect a certain action will have on our happiness (Mill 363). If the person who is going to nuke the problem gets high pleasure, then he or she should be able to do it according to Mill. He also claims that “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 365). Nuking the problem could produce happiness to the person who is doing this action, but if the person who is against nuking the problem then it will cause the action to be wrong and produce the reverse of happiness. All in all, Mill would say …show more content…
Mill would say that his theory has no flaw as well because he says that we should strive for better pleasures and that it is better to be dissatisfied then to be “pig satisfied,” so if we decided to nuke the problem at hand then we are not striving for a higher pleasure, but instead settling for a selfish pleasure that only we are only satisfied with (Mill 367). To sum it up, both Kant and Mill have solutions to the potential flaws that might be in their theories.

In conclusion, Kant and Mill both have different solutions when it comes to the ethical problem of nuking, Kant would say to not drop the nuke because it is unmoral, and it could never be a universal law. Mill would say that if dropping the nuke produces higher pleasure for you then you should do it and if it does not give you higher pleasure then you should not do it. If I was put in this situation I would have to agree with Kant’s theory and not nuke the problem at hand because I do not think it is ethical because you are sacrificing millions of lives for your personal