Immanuel Kant was more important than John Stuart Mill in the development of philosophy

It has been a pleasure. To remind the viewers and my opponent, no new arguments or sources are to be used this round and no referencing sources from previous rounds unless citing information already mentioned. Metaphysics and EpistemologyMill provided depth and a continued influence of empiricism among the public. That’s it--or all Con provides us. Kant changed the face of philosophy. The “Critique of Pure Reason” was highly original, ingenious, and easily one of, if not the--as Robert Hanna argues (round 2) and Con doesn’t refute--most important philosophical works in modern philosophy. As shown, it synthesized rationalism and empiricism, set metaphysics on a scientific footing, kept it from sliding into skepticism, introduced the synthetic a priori, and had massive impacts which changed the course of philosophy permanently. Con has hardly attempted to make a comparison and left most of my argument untouched. Reviewing my opening case, it is easy to see that the significance of Kant’s metaphysics far surpasses that of Mill’s. Kant ushered in a philosophical revolution. Mill’s metaphysical and epistemic philosophy was around long before him or even Kant. Mill’s contributions to empiricism are notable, but not nearly so much as Kant’s contributions to critical philosophy in general. Con says, “Without influence there is little to no development. ” The influence mentioned is of the broad general public. There’s no reason to say empiricism was not still influential in philosophical discourse. Indeed, the broad general public is not entirely relevant unless they contribute themselves to the development of philosophy, which layman do not, really. EthicsCon states that modern society is largely based on teleology, specifically utilitarianism. This bold claim goes unsupported and would be immaterial either way. It’s already been established that the three main fields of ethics are virtue ethics, deontology theory, and consequentialism. Regardless of societal influence, deontology ethics and consequentialism are both of the foremost importance in philosophy. Moreover, philosophy is theoretical, so the inference from more societal impact to more philosophical impact must be illuminated. However, it is too late in the debate for Con to bring in new sources, so it’s doubtful that this can be accomplished. Lastly, even if utilitarianism was more important than Kantian ethics, that would only mean Bentham and Mill together are more important, not that Mill himself is. Con says, “I would be amazed if an educated conversation of utilitarianism could take place without reference to John Stuart Mill. ” Mill’s importance is indeed supreme, which is why I stated that when you think of utilitarianism you think Bentham, then Mill. I never excluded Mill, merely gave more credit to the founder. Mill is truly one of the greatest classical figures in the philosophy of ethics. I have no intention of withholding due credit. Since Kant stands alone in his central role in deontology ethics, and since his system is his own and would not exist without him, I maintain that Kant was of more importance. Aesthetics Mill contributed to aesthetics but his work was “widely neglected” as Con’s source claims. Con concedes this contention. Aesthetics is not as momentous as metaphysics or ethics, but it is a significant field of philosophy and Kant’s contributions were paramount. Logic Con’s quote claims that Mill brought clarity to the subject and developed a system which became important for experimental science. It’s superficial to note that Kant never wrote a separate work on logic. Logic was ever present in Kant’s philosophy and was central to his theories. The inconsequential fact that he never wrote a separate book on it did not mean he did not write extensively on logic. His views on logic sit at a crucial point in the history of logic. The German idealists adopted his views and many of the most important figures in the development of the philosophy of logic were inspired by his views, as shown last round. LibertyCon claims Mill’s contributions overshadows Kant’s, but does not provide any additional support for this claim. He states “Mill’s concepts of liberty have largely been implemented to modern society. ” All Con has proven, with the required sourcing, is that the “Harm Principle” is widely applied in modern society, without actually explaining what this principle is or how it contributed to philosophy itself. I showed that the negative/positive conception of liberty goes back to Kant and that Kant was a key figure in autonomy in moral and political philosophy, and influenced figures such as Rawls. I don’t believe that Con has offered sufficient reason to view Mill’s contributions as superior to Kant’sWomenVery well. Mill helped acceptance of women in philosophy. That is notable but does not compare to Kant’s contributions to philosophy in general and the course that philosophy took. Moreover, Mill is just one figure in a line of feminist thinkers. Without Mill, it remains dubious how much impaired female philosophical development would be. Philosophy of religion; arguments for God Con concedes Kant’s higher importance here but maintains that Mill provided contributions of his own. I have nothing further to add or dispute. ConclusionMetaphysics: Kant initiated a philosophical revolution and changed the face of philosophy with great originality and ingenuity. Mill merely provided depth and influence to empiricism and is overshadowed by other empiricists such as Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. Epistemology: same as metaphysics. Ethics: Kant is the central figure of deontology ethics and created his own original theory. Mill is the second most important utilitarian figure and developed Bentham’s original theory. Both are truly great persons in ethical philosophy, but Kant’s significance outweighs Mills. Aesthetics: Con concedes that Kant’s contributions were greaterLogic: Many of the greatest logicians were inspired by Kant’s views. Logic was central to much of Kant’s critical philosophy and stands at a crucial point in the history of logic. Liberty: Kant was a key figure in autonomy in moral and political philosophy. Women: Mill was undeniably of greater importance, but, philosophically speaking, this has the least bearing on the development of philosophy. Philosophy of religion: Con concedes that Kant’s contributions outweigh Mill’s. To close, I would simply pose the following question: where would philosophy be without Kant and where would it be without Mill? Without Mill, we would still have empiricism and we would still have utilitarianism. They would simply lose an important champion. On the other hand, without Kant, it is impossible to imagine where philosophy would be today. His revolutionary theories changed the very nature of philosophy. Kant was of paramount importance to the development of philosophy and surpasses Mill.