Despite the provocative title, we are quite aware just how polarizing the theories of deontology and utilitarianism can be. However, I noticed some key words in Mill that really evoked the thoughts of Kant.
Clearly, Mill
demonstrates a more complex view of happiness, differentiating it from the
classical hedonistic view predominated in many Utilitarian theories before his
own. Mill also calls agents to “be as
strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator,” when comparing
his or her own happiness with that of others.
Mill’s nuanced theory almost sounds Kantian at this point; he has kept
the general theory of Utilitarianism, but has revamped a more comprehensive
view of happiness, factored in the happiness of both the agents giving and
receiving the action, and has called the agent (in a theory which famously
champions self-interest and best interest) to be as disinterested and as
impartial as possible.
Many prominent philosophers over the years have had incredibly nuanced theories- of these theories, there exist parallel versions, quite popular and very much simplified, and these are often the ones that are implemented in the real world, and discussed by persons with no prior knowledge of the subject. (Marx and Adam Smith come to mind).
Do we overemphasize the difference between Mill and Kant?
Here I think you have stumbled onto one of the great flaws of philosophical debate that has caused more than one problem over the years. People are naturally looking for the differences in each other, in each others work, trying to see which one is better, and trying to be as different or noticeably different, is a part of human nature.
ReplyDeleteIn philosophy however, looking for common starting ground or common factors should be a cornerstone of a philosophers efforts. For many of the Ancient and Modern philosophers who were trying to develop an all-encompassing philosophy this is the basis of their work. However, many of the moderns and the 20th century philosophers appear to have abandoned these efforts and instead focused on building entire new philosophies entirely from a small starting point.
They call what came before them too flimsy, when their own work has a single fragile pillar for support.