PART II: KANT vs MILL - Kant's views
Again, for the consequentialist, an act is right in so far as it brings into existence the greatest amount of non-moral value. The ends can be taken to justify the means (although rule utilitarianism sought to overcome this). For deontologists such as Kant, considering the consequences makes the act a hypothetical imperative and not a moral choice at all. Instead there is something inherent in the act itself or reflective of the rule that determines our choice. A hypothetical imperative in Kantian philosophy is one that is conditional. If you do not want Y to come about, then you ought to do X. The ought in this case can be rejected if you reject the hypothesis. Thus, you ought not to hurt others because it causes pain. The retort could be that I really enjoy pain so that it is OK for me to hurt others. The consequences brought about are determined by what is desirable. For Kant, morality entails categorical imperatives that are without exception (both a strong point and a weak point as will be seen). Morality cannot be built on contingent and changing grounds. Instead, reason (the pure practical reason as opposed to the kind of reason that helps us structure the empirical realm) demands of us the we universalize any choice so that it can become a universal law. Kant's categorical imperative states that one should "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Kant, following the Stoic philosophers, saw reason (logos for the Stoics) as uniquely human, a faculty that makes rational demands upon us in which we act out of a sense of duty.