The moral philosophies of Mill, Kant, and Aristotle are different in the rationale they offer for moral behavior. Each theorist offers what he believes is a normative ethical theory that should be used as a guide to determining moral behavior. Of the three, that of John Stuart Mill offers one of the better guides to moral behavior and to the balance to be maintained between the rights and responsibilities of the individual to him or herself and to his or her society. Kant bases his view of morality entirely on reason, while Aristotle saw the virtuous man as feeling good about being virtuous. Mill offers a utilitarian conception of morality that serves because it works and because it takes into account the different requirements of the parties involved and finds a balance based on achieving the best possible result, an approach that seems geared to complex issues more reasonably than does Aristotle's version of virtue or Kant's conception of moral duty.
In discussing moral philosophy, Kant sets up an opposition between duty and inclination and links the opposition to the operation of reason. The distinction can also be made between animal impulses and human consciousness. Kant makes a distinction between actions taken from inclination and those taken from duty, and only those taken from duty can be said to have moral worth. He indeed makes a further distinction between acts taken in accordance with duty and those that are taken for the sake of duty, and again only those taken for the sake of duty have moral worth. Duty is defined as acts performed because of an imperative to do so and thus as acts opposed to inclination. Yet, duty and inclination are not mutually exclusive by any means. There are many things we do out of duty that we also do out of inclination. Kant cites the preservation of one's life, for instance, and notes that this is a duty but that the individual is also strongly inclined to do so. In some ways...