1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

and abstractions. They wanted to know "why?" This is why they spent most of their lives in study

and thought and have affected the moral thought of mankind during the last 2,000 years. What I

want to do is to discuss intelligence as it is relative to the moral philosophies of Kant and Mill in

terms of their own personalities, and then make a criticism of Mill's philosophy based on his lack

of understanding of personality.

III: Kant

Why do we have a concept of morality? Is it because it has been handed down by an

omnipotent being, or because of biological principles? What is the purpose of morality? Is it to gain

happiness or allow one's existence? To Kant, morality is the agreement to have certain self-

inflicted constraints on human behavior, in order that we may survive as an individual and a

species. In order to do this, we must be able to speak a similar language so that we may make a

promise to abide by these constraints on human behavior. By making these promises we become

part of the kingdom of ends, we become legislators, we make our morality. By entering upon

agreement with other rational beings, we become part of the kingdom of ends, we place absolute

value on human life. These laws that we live by are formulated by reason. There are two

formulations, one moral and the other practical. The categorical imperative is this: "Act only

according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal

law." (Kant 1993, pg.30) What this means is that morality is objective, it must apply to all in all

situations. Thus, it is immoral to lie in any situation because if lying where to be made a universal

principle society would not be able to function. If there were to be no trust, lies would, as a

consequence be useless, a general incredulity would cause (if one examines game theory) society

to falter, and chaos would ensue. We can only find what is moral through the categorical

imperative through reason (and to further ensure that an action is moral, it is feasible to test it

empirically through history or the social sciences). "The categorical imperative would be one which

represented an action as objectively necessary in itself, without reference to another end." (Kant

1993, pg. 25) Thus, Kant concludes that to be moral we must act out of duty, not for any end but

because we must, as it is necessary--we must act out of good will.

The hypothetical imperative, on the other hand also requires rationality, not to be moral and