IndexIntroductionSimilaritiesDifferencesConclusionIntroductionBoth Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill studied the concept of morality for, in a certain sense, the future good of society. Even though they both, on the whole, studied for the same goal, their ways of studying were different. For Immanuel Kant, the key to achieving future goodness with morality is to separate law and duty from morality, while John Stuart Mill believes it is the morality of utility, which helps people achieve their future goodness. Both of these philosophers and their respective ideas have created different and coherent perspectives. Their perspectives influenced by experience (Mill) and reason (Kant) are the reason they have differences in their ideas. That's why in this article both ideas will be compared in terms of their similarities and one of the main differences. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay SimilaritiesAlthough both ideas and philosophers share a common goal, their ideas do not share many similarities. In fact, there are two similarities between these two ideas. The first is having no self-interest during a moral action. The second is the universality of moral action. Both Mill and Kant think that morality appears when a person abandons his or her self-interest, with small differences. According to Kant, thanks to human rationality, there are laws, moral laws to be exact, and those laws are the factors that drive people to act morally. This also represents Kant's alignment with reason. However, when human beings choose to act morally, not only according to the law factor, they act only according to morality. To clarify this definition, Kant gives the example of the shopkeeper in this book Metaphysics of Morals. The example essentially says that, in a situation where a shopkeeper can deceive customers, but chooses not to deceive them due to the laws. So the shopkeeper is not a moral person because he chooses to act morally out of fear of the consequences (Kant, p.11). Just as in this situation, moral actions taken just to obey the law are not moral because they contain a self-interest, not getting caught and avoiding punishment. According to Mill, and according to the view of utilitarianism, every action taken is moral, if the particular action aims to increase aggregate utility, or in other words happiness. Just like Kant's reason, this represents experience. This utilitarian condition of morality clearly shows that what matters is overall happiness in the world and that people should try to achieve it. Unlike Kant, Mill does not limit selfish actions, as much as Kant does. Mill has a calmer behavior towards such actions, because in a situation where selfish action produces more utility, it is necessary to take selfish action. In this scenario, personal interest also becomes moral interest. As Mill says in his book Utilitarianism; "Whoever saves his fellow man from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive is duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble; whoever betrays the friend who trusts him is guilty of a crime" (Mill, p. .20). However, this does not mean that self-interest and utility are parallel concepts. This means that sometimes they can coincide and for Mill it is perfectly fine to choose a selfish action because it serves a higher purpose, morality. While according to Kant, personal interest and moral action cannot coincide with each other. Although both differ in terms of the rigor of self-interest, both putalways moral actions above selfish actions. The second similarity between Mill and Kant is the universality of morality. For both, their respective conception of morality should apply to all human beings. For utilitarianism, the idea itself aims to be universal because the primary concern is the aggregate happiness of the world. But Kant's idea has few further layers when it comes to universalization. According to the categorical imperative, it is moral to take actions that are rational and possible for everyone. In the words of Kant, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will it to become a universal law” (Kant, p. 30). Of course, this universalization derives from Kant's faith in human rationality. There is a delicate balance in Kant's thought, as I understand it, when people act rationally, they aim to achieve their own self-interest. But when human rationality is possible or conceivable for everyone, universal self-interest disappears. Give way to goodness and general morality. There is no point in chasing self-interest, because now everyone can have their own self-interest, it is logical to seek general happiness with rational, general actions, morality. This is why Kant's categorical imperative is similar to the universalization of utilitarianism, because it is moral to take actions that are rational and possible for everyone. Differences Despite the similarities they share, both ideas also have differences. However, there is an important difference, which shows why both philosophers who aim to achieve morality and general goodness, differ in terms of ideas. The main difference between the two is their (Mill's and Kant's) views on means to ends. Kant says that when one performs an action, one must consider the consequences of the action as much as one must consider the moral end. In the Metaphysics of Morals Kant says it like this: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means" (Kant, p.36) . Basically, Kant defends that no matter how noble or moral the result of an action is, if it creates something immoral in the process, then that action is not moral at all. On the other hand, the mill always considers the ends above the means. As long as an action helps the world become a better place, or in other words a happier place, the action taken is not important because the outcome is always moral. The problem of superheroes is the perfect example to show the difference between Mill and Kant's conception of morality, because it discusses what happens to the world if superheroes exist. This example of superheroes basically says that while they save the world, they destroy many buildings, cities, constructions and cause the death of many people. Of course, superheroes try to save the world through their pure morality, without self-interest. However, Kant would not agree with their morality because in the process of protecting people they killed many. As a result, they lost their morality because they did not consider the means and focused on the end. Unlike Kant, for Mill their actions would still be moral because they focus on the end. If they didn't save the world, then everyone would be dead. This is why the views of Kant and Mill cannot meet when it comes to means and ends. As mentioned at the beginning of this article, they found their motivation in different concepts, for Mill it is experience, while for Kant it is reason. I think Kant puts reason before experience, because he sees everything in black and white, at every level. For example, an action causes morality or not. Then it goes to the next level and into that.