Utilitarianism & Deontology

Question

What does J.S. Mill cite as the source of moral knowledge in utilitarianism?

What does Kant cite as the source of moral knowledge in deontology? Can you also explain hypothetical vs. categorical imperative and his two formulations of categorical imperative vs. perfect and imperfect duties. I am so confused on this.

Answer 1

Thank you for the question.

1. The "source of moral knowledge" can be a tricky question. The medievalists accepted what is known as "divine command theory," which is that God is the source of moral knowledge. Since Kant and Mill were part of the enlightenment movement, they tried to move away from leaning on divine commands in their ethical schemes. For Kant, the source of moral knowledge is reason. Moral principles like the categorical imperative should be accepted because they are true 'a priori,' meaning that they have an intrinsic reasonableness that resembles mathematical certainty. Mill is different. He wouldn't say that moral knowledge is true 'a priori.' Instead, human emotion and experience is the source of this knowledge. When we apply scientific style observations to human beings, we can see which type of lifestyle leads to human happiness, and which does not. If it causes happiness, then it must be moral. In a nutshell, Kant's deontology is more mathematical, and Mill's consequentialism is more scientific.
2. Hypothetical and categorical imperatives consider two different types of principle of human action. If you are acting simply because it is a means to an end, you are acting on a hypothetical imperative. For example, "I will donate money because it will help my political career." A categorical imperative requires you to act out of an internally consistent moral principle that has no reference to real world consequences. I will quote the main formulation, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." For example, why is it wrong to steal? It's not because it will cause grief to the other person, which is what Mill's answer would be. It's because we cannot universalize the subjective principle of action. We first enunciate the subjective principle of action, "it is permissible for me to steal as a means of acquiring property." Then we try to convert this principle into a universal law. "It is permissible for everyone to steal as a means of acquiring property." However, if it were permissible for everyone to steal, then the notion of personal property would have no meaning. Since the universalized principle results in a logical contradiction, it cannot serve as a categorical imperative, meaning it is not an ethical action. Slavery would be another example of violating the categorical imperative, asserting your freedom and at the same time denying it in others. It's a contradiction. Your question about perfect duty falls under this paragraph as well. One's perfect duty is to obey the categorical imperative.
3. Lastly, I am going to differentiate perfect and imperfect duty. A perfect duty is a moral requirement. If you don't obey the categorical imperative, according to Kant, you should be blamed and treated as guilty. "You shall not steal." An imperfect duty, on the other hand, is not something you are obligated to do, but something you probably should do. Kant says you have an imperfect duty to cultivate your own talents, go to piano practice, work on your novel etc. You don't necessarily have to be treated as guilty if you fail to do it.