Immanuel Kant vs. John Stuart Mill

[BattleofHodow]

The Chinese philosopher Mencius is reputed to have said that all humans would be struck by a feeling of panic and concern if we see a child fall in a well.

There does not seem to be a biological evolutionary reason why panic and concern would well up in us upon seeing a stranger fall into a well. Mencius seemed to think this indicated humans are embued with a latent empathy or morality which did not result by accident, training, or evolution.

Yeah, but saving a child in the well would calm one down.

[Cypress]

Immanuel Kant: morals are categorical imperatives -- morality is an absolute objective truth which exists independent of human thought and opinion.

John Stuart Mill: ethics are constructed by humans on the basis of utilitarian and practical considerations. Consequences matter in the context of ethics. Whatever brings happiness to the greatest number of people is a true measure of morality.

Professor Lawrence Cahoons articulated a good analogy:

If you believe the freedom of speech is an absolute inviolable right such that even Nazis and Klansmen are allowed to stage demonstrations, that is legacy you have inherited from Kant.

If you believe it is right to lie if it serves a higher purpose (i.e.., to protect someone's privacy or welfare) you are practicing the utilitarianism of Mills.