In my paper I will discuss the different claims made by both Mills and Kant on happiness" role in moral life and present the issue that turns these two ethical theories into a contrast between emotions and pleasures verses rationality and logic. John Stuart Mills supported the pursuit of happiness, and maintained the concept that above all other values pleasure existed as the main purpose for life. Even though Mills believed so strongly in his idea of happiness another man named Immanuel Kant believed that the well being of each person should be an end in itself. He stresses that you should never treat someone as simply a means but always as a means to an end. He also believes that there can be no exceptions to moral rules. This comes from the theory of the universal law, which says that an action is only moral if the reason for performing it could be a reason everyone could have (ICE). Kant's moral theory and Utilitarianism are similar because they both attempt to explain how one can go about acting ethically, but they differ in areas of measuring morality and their usage of rules. Both Kant and Mills measure morality in different ways. Kant says that an act is considered moral if it's done for the sake of duty and if it can be a universal law. If one completes an action based on their duty to perform, they do the right thing because it is what they feel they ought to do as their duty. Therefore, this act would be considered morally just. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, would only see the act as morally permissible if the consequences of that action produce the greatest utility and happiness for all people. .
Mill defines utility as happiness and makes a system in which ethical judgment or action is based on the action's ability to bring the most happiness. The major fault to Mill's ethics is that by making the greatest amount of happiness the first principle of morality, this takes advantage of the few for the well being of the majority.