Kant’s and Mill’s Ideas for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Essay (Critical Writing)

October 26, 2021 by Essay Writer

Introduction

Since the medieval days, western philosophers have often debated the nature of happiness and the definition of a good life (Collier, Frances, & Haliburton, 2015). Two of the most celebrated philosophers who have helped to expound on these issues are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Socrates is another notable philosopher who has provided unique views about the good life. His works are widespread because he has provided the background for the development of these views by “newer” philosophers, such as Kant and Mill, who came after him. Indeed, Kant and Mill’s works seem to borrow from the principles of Socrates and other philosophers about ethics, morality, and good life. Although the timelines of their works seem to overlap, they share different views about happiness and the good life. This paper explores their different visions of life, through a critical analysis of their arguments about the morality and ethics of human happiness. In the context of this paper, the phrase “the good life” and the concept of happiness are used synonymously.

This paper is divided into eight sections. The first one outlines what Kant and Mill say about the vision of the good life. The second and third sections of this paper compare and contrast both visions to find out the areas of commonality and differences in both. From this review, the fourth section of the paper outlines the more compelling view, which is that Kant’s vision of a good life is more superior to Mill’s vision of the same. The subsequent section of our analysis delves deeper into this position by comparing the relevance and importance of intention vs. consequence of action. This analysis sets the stage for the sixth and seventh sections of the essay, which explore how Mill and Kant’s philosophies are useful to modern societies and the treatment of patients suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The last section of the paper is the conclusion section, which summarizes the main points of the study and reinforces the main arguments of the paper.

What do the Philosophers say about Good Life?

The Good Life According to Socrates

Socrates introduced the concept of the “examined life,” as a hallmark of his conception of the good life. He argued that through self-examination, people could find out “things” about themselves that would enable them to live a good life (Young, 2014). Stated differently, he proposed that self-examination would yield positive outcomes that would enable people to live a good life (Collier et al., 2015). In other words, he argued that the whole purpose of self-examination is to understand oneself and rebalance life in a way that would yield a “superior” quality of life. Based on this analogy, Socrates emphasized the importance of self-awareness as a prerequisite to the enjoyment of the good life. Broadly, this view demonstrates that the reward for self-examination is a good life.

The Good Life According to Kant

Kant’s description of the good life is non-technical because he points out that the good life is achievable by getting what one wants. Moran (2012) provides a more accurate definition of Kant’s vision of happiness by saying the good life is a product of continuous wellbeing and the enjoyment of life. Stated differently, Kant suggested that the good life is achieved through a complete satisfaction with one’s condition (Collier et al., 2015). Based on these definitions, his vision of happiness is synonymous with a man’s preservation and welfare because his definition of happiness is represented by a complete sense of satisfaction with one’s life and inclinations. In an article titled, “The Critique of Practical Reason,” Kant further delves into his vision of what constitutes the good life by saying “it is the state of a rational being in the world in the whole of whose existence everything goes according to his wish and will” (Hughes, 2014, p. 64). Here, it is critical to point out that Kant outlined a significant difference between happiness and pleasure. He said the good life is not associated with the joyous feeling of living a moral life; instead, it is defined by getting what somebody wants (Moran, 2012). Warner Wick, an independent philosopher, agrees with this view by saying that the good life is only achieved when people pursue their interests or get what they want (Hughes, 2014).

The Good Life According to Mill

John Stuart Mill says the good life is achievable if pleasure is maximized through the avoidance of pain (Young, 2014). In other words, he says the good life is achieved if there is freedom from pain. His arguments are based on a simple metric that gauges the good life on a continuum of pleasure and pain. Therefore, the good life is achievable if people are inclined towards pleasure and not towards pain. His argument is based on the principle that all that is desired and that creates a good life is appealing because of the pleasure it gives (Young, 2014). Using the principle of the greatest happiness, Mill says that people should seek the greatest enjoyment of life (through pain avoidance) to enjoy the good life (Collier et al., 2015). This view is also evident in his utilitarian ideology, which recognizes the power of sacrifice for the greater enjoyment of “the whole.” According to him, the greatest enjoyment of life would be possible if everyone is involved in the process (Young, 2014). Stated differently, Mill does not believe that the greatest enjoyment of life can be achieved through the happiness of an individual; everyone needs to be involved, or, at least, many people need to experience happiness for the good life to exist.

How are the two Visions Alike?

Although there are significant differences between Kant and Mill’s visions of the good life, notably, their views overlap on one key area of commonality – both philosophers agree that the good life could be achieved by pursuing pleasure. The degree of this pleasure is the only area of difference emerging in both visions (Kant says the good life could be realized through the pursuit of individual pleasure, while Mill says the vision is achieved through the pursuit of collective pleasure). Nonetheless, both philosophers agree that the pursuit of pleasure leads to satisfaction with a person’s life and hence the good life.

How different are the Two Visions?

Kant’s vision of the good life stems from his utilitarian view of ethics, which focuses on the moral law of duty (Hughes, 2014). In other words, he looks at the reason for doing something as the basis for happiness and a good life. Mill uses a different metric for defining happiness. He says that happiness is realized when there is the least suffering among people (Collier et al., 2015). He transfers this reasoning to his explanation of morality because he says that morality is achieved if there is a balance between happiness and suffering (Young, 2014). Here, he separates individuals from the concept of happiness by saying that the latter could be achieved even if a person is not involved in the general pursuit of happiness. In other words, he believes that happiness could be achieved if the majority population feels it (regardless of whether the minority experience it, or not).

This is a significant point of departure from Kant’s vision because the latter is more individualistic, in the sense that it focuses on the fulfillment of individual desires, as opposed to communal happiness, as a basis for the good life. Kant’s vision of happiness and the good life fundamentally differs from that of Mill because it is not based on morality. Comparatively, Mill bases his definition of happiness and the good life on morality. Stated differently, Kant says one person may not necessarily feel happy by doing what is moral (Moran, 2012). Mill believes otherwise because he says that the good life is only achievable if morality prevails, or a greater number of people feel pleasure, as opposed to pain.

Who has the more Convincing Vision of the Good Life?

Through our analysis of both Kant and Mill’s vision of the good life, we find that both philosophers have fundamentally different bases for defining what the good life entails. However, I believe that Kant has a more convincing vision of the good life because, by its definition alone, the good life is a personal experience, which one lives by engaging in activities that he/she considers worthwhile. I believe that this is mostly an individual endeavor. Therefore, the “greater good” principle outlined by Mill fails to hold credence because people do not often engage in the same types of activities, or consider similar activities to be worthwhile. If we were to further analyze Mill’s argument in a broader (universal) sense, we would find his arguments flawed in the sense that, what causes suffering, or pleasure, tends to change across cultures, events, places, and timelines. In other words, different things bring happiness to different people, cultures, countries, and even regions. Indeed, even in one family, it is difficult to find all members interested in doing the same things. Using this example alone, I find it hard to believe that the happiness of most people in a family should amount to happiness for the entire family. Comparatively, if we were to allow everyone in the family to pursue their versions of happiness, we are more likely to realize a goal where everyone is happy or is living the good life, in their way. In this regard, I believe that the “generalization” of the concept of the good life is the greatest weakness of Mill’s vision. However, the weakness in my argument is hinged on the fact that individual pursuit of happiness could infringe on other’s happiness and lead to the failure to realize the vision of the good life.

What is more important, Intention or Consequences of our Actions?

The balance between intention and consequences of action has subtly influenced how Mill and Kant define the good life. According to Kant, the intention is more important than consequences; however, according to Mill, the consequence is more important than intention (Collier et al., 2015). The differences in their views stem from their visions and understanding of morality. The intention is mostly denoted by a person’s goodwill, while a consequence is denoted by the effect that such intentions could have on society. Stated differently, when looking at the intention, we are examining the morality and ethics of our actions. I believe when evaluating the importance of intention and consequences, it is important to consider the context of analysis because this would be the guiding principle of our evaluation. The context of the good life provides us with one such focus because it directs us to where the source of happiness lies.

Similarly, I believe that intention is more important than the consequences of action because the latter is often subject to different factors. Comparatively, the intention is often unwavering and more common among different groups of people, compared to the consequences of an action. For example, we find that the will to “no harm” is common among many societies. However, how to achieve this goal varies across them. Furthermore, what may work well in one context may fail to work in another. Based on this example, I believe that people should be much more focused on intention, as opposed to the consequences of an action. This view is close to the vision of Kant and Socrates about the good life because it focuses on people’s desires as a source of happiness, as opposed to what society expects of them, or what most people deem ethical and moral.

How can these Findings Apply to Modern Society?

Modern society is different from past societies because new complexities and forces define it. For example, globalization is a real thing today and it influences different aspects of our social, political, and economic lives, in ways never thought before. Similarly, many factors are influencing the vision of different societies about the good life. For example, some previously conservative societies in Asia are today adopting the western lifestyle of consumerism and are using it as a measure of the good life. The same is true in Eastern Europe, which was mainly communist. Generally, there is a sense of commonality developing across different societies regarding the ideals of life that similarly influence our vision of the good life.

Buoyed by an influx of ideas from different parts of the world, modern society is increasingly finding itself spoilt by an ever-increasing number of options and a cocktail of ideas about life. These influences have affected our perceptions and ideas regarding the good life. Kant and Mill’s visions of the good life could be useful in providing clarity to a world characterized by increased options and a high influx of information about almost anything. Socrates’ vision of the good life also comes into sharp focus in this respect because he outlines the balance many people face between convenient conventionality and the truth that could come from self-examination. What we choose, between these two polar ends, would determine whether to consider the lives we live as philosophically “good,” or true to our identities.

How can these Findings Apply to People Suffering from PTSD?

People with PTSD are likely to experience depression, low self-esteem, and more likely to have suicidal thoughts compared to the general populace. Kant and Mill’s visions of the good life apply to this problem because they outline different thought processes that victims could use to get out of the quagmire. Furthermore, their philosophies could help improve the response and treatment of PTSD in psychology and therapy treatments. To have a better understanding of Kant’s vision of the subject matter, we base our analysis on his view of suicide. According to him, suicide is unacceptable and immoral because human beings have a duty to stay alive (Moran, 2012). Thus, he believes that the utmost duty human beings have in the world is to take care of themselves, before performing any other duty. The failure to do so would be disastrous because it would mean that a person would not be able to perform other duties required of him or her.

In the context of PTSD treatment, we find this analogy useful because it implies that suicide is not an option out of the problem and instead of wishing it away, or “putting an end to the misery” through death, victims of PTSD should seek treatment, as a prerequisite for their happiness. Based on these arguments, we find that Kant espouses two main arguments relating to PTSD. One is that victims of PTSD have to perform their duty, which is to get better, so long as they are alive. The second one is that they should try to live as long as possible (Moran, 2012). All these arguments encourage victims of PTSD to seek help because it is their moral duty to take care of themselves and their duty to stay alive.

Mill has a slightly different view of human suffering because his arguments are often informed by the difference between individual actions and collective actions. PTSD is mostly an individualized problem and affects the realization of the good life, as described in our text. If we were to apply the principles of Mill to this problem, we find that he justifies the actions that an individual would take when suffering from PTSD, regardless of whether such actions cause a greater sense of happiness or pleasure to others. Therefore, if PTSD causes greater harm to the people around the affected person, it would be prudent to address it. Mill gives no specifics to the kind of actions that victims could take to get better because he argues that people have a right to take their own life or be punished for causing harm to others (Young, 2014). This view is profound in his assessment of the “harm principle.” Unlike Kant, Mill is open to allowing people to harm themselves because it is their right to do so. However, he clarifies that this position does not mean that it is morally right to do so.

Conclusion

In this essay, I have explored the views of Socrates, Kant, and Mill regarding the good life. More importantly, I narrowed down on the views of two philosophers – Kant and Mill and explained the areas of similarity and differences regarding their visions on the same. Kant’s vision of the good life emerged as the superior view because it recognizes the concept of individualism, which characterizes most societies. In my view, Mill’s vision is relatively flawed because it generalizes people’s desires and perceptions of the good life. However, the weakness in my argument is hinged on the fact that individual pursuit of happiness could infringe on other’s happiness and lead to the failure to realize the vision of the good life. Regardless of these differences, we find that the good life is mostly described by engaging in activities that the concerned parties would deem worthwhile. These activities typically require a will to exercise human excellence. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that developing, or exercising, the virtues espoused by Kant and Mill is by no means living the good life, in the simplistic sense of the phrase; instead, it is a way of doing so.