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

unaware that how he thinks is just one of 16 types, and that his specific personality type is in the

minority. Whether his moral philosophy is wrong or not is another matter, by automatically

disregarding 99% of humanity it raises serious questions. Kant has made a lovely argument that is

logically consistent, it is elegant and I see few flaws--in fact, I personally like it (I myself am an

INTP), but we must, regardless of how much we favor it, question Kant's philosophy in that it

applies to only a narrow piece of humanity. It may even be considered flawed in that Kant assumes

that everyone has the potential to become an INTP, have a high IQ, and thus become a "rational

being." We must also raise the question of whether the fact that there are only 60,000 potential

"rational beings" affects the Kants moral philosophy. But, we must also entertain the possibility

that we only need 60,000 moral individuals--these individuals will be the ones that dictate the

moral philosophy for the other 6 billion individuals on our planet. If we look historically at those

individual that have set are moral doctrine from Moses through Socrates to Kant we find that the

moral philosophers have always been INTPs. Following this, shall we also consider that their are

16 different moralities, each equally valid and each suited for one of the 16 personality types? By

understanding Kant's perspective through personality, we begin to understand why he believed

and theorized the way he did and why he valued intelligence and certain personality types

(regardless of whether he was familiar with personality types) more than others--we see his

personality type reflected in his philosophy.

IV. Mill

We can see the importance of intelligence and personality even more so than in Kant's

philosophy by looking at John Stuart Mill's philosophy of Utilitarianism. For Mill, morality is

determined by cost/benefit analysis of what makes the most individuals the happiest--the good of

the few for the good of the many. Though happiness is the end, happiness itself can be weighed

according to the "greatest happiness principle"(Mill 1979, pg. 7,11). By the "greatest happiness

principle," not only must the quantity of the happiness be measured (number of people who will be

made happy) but the quality of the happiness must be added up. This can be explained by dividing

happiness into "animal pleasures" (those pleasures such as food and sex which provide happiness)

and "pleasures of the mind" (those pleasures which satisfy the mind, such as knowledge, and