How should people act? What do people think is right? What does ‘right’ even mean? Ethics is a moral philosophy that strives to answer such questions, trying to determine how people ought to act and attaining a more definitive meaning of the right conduct and a good life. Although there are many different interpretations and theories on what the most accurate moral philosophy is, Utilitarianism is perhaps the most exact of the ethical positions, commonly countered with Objectivism. In this paper there will be three arguments by John Stuart Mills supporting Utilitarianism that will be countered with three arguments from Immanuel Kant in defense of the ethical position of Objectivism. Before understanding the arguments from both positions, one …show more content…
Arguments supporting Utilitarianism include Mills’, the Principle of utility, qualitative versus quantitative approach to utility and finally that pleasure-pain calculus is impossible. On the other hand, we have Objectivism, an ethical position that has the basic idea is that our moral judgements are things that can be either true or false, they are objective moral facts and states moral values aren’t dependent on anything outside of them. Strong arguments supporting objectivism are Kants’ morality and rationality, Good defined as good will and the categorical imperative. Although both positions are strong will convincing arguments they both contain weaknesses as well, this will be further explained later in the paper. Ultimately Utilitarianism comes out on top in comparing these two …show more content…
This principle of Utilitarianism strives to answer the question, regarding to any moral standard, is “What are the motives to follow such moral standards?”. An individual is deemed moral when their actions advocate the benefit of the public, according to the greatest happiness principle. Mills believed that the foundation of morals was in fact utility and defined it as ‘happiness with the absence of pain’. The principle helps us define the controversial phrases right, wrong, happiness and unhappiness in the most basic of terms. A choice or action is ‘right’ when it promotes happiness and considered ‘wrong’ if it encourages the opposite of happiness. While happiness is defined as state when there is pleasure present, but the absence of pain and unhappiness is quite the contrary it is pain with lack of pleasure being present, also knowing as suffering. According to Mills the central issue with ethical theory is the question of the supreme good or ultimate end and this argument is designed to express that the maximum happiness is the ultimate moral good. Now that it is understood the principle of the greatest good helps answers a question of moral
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that an action is considered right as long as it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later was refined by J.S Mill. Mill differs from Bentham by introducing a qualitative view on pleasure and makes a distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. John Hospers critiques utilitarianism and shows that rule utilitarianism under more specific and stricter rules would promote utility better. Bernard Williams believes that utilitarianism is too demanding from people and instead believes virtue ethics is a better solution. Williams seems to have only considered act utilitarianism instead of rule utilitarianism, which may have better responses to the problems proposed by Williams. Sterling Hardwood purposes eleven objections to utilitarianism which can be used to help make compromise between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. I will argue that rule utilitarianism can be formed in such a way that it avoids the problems that arise from Williams, and Hardwood.
First and foremost, the Greatest Happiness Principle focuses on two main ideas: one’s actions and their resulting utility. An individual is considered moral correct if their actions promote universal utility. However, the principle doesn’t simply require individuals to make any choice that promotes utility. A person is considered “morally correct” when and only when their decision promotes the most pleasure and minimizes the most pain.
Throughout the essay, Mills speaks highly of utilitarianism as a way to construct a happier more stable society. “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness” (Mill 137). The ideas of such political philosophers such as Mills and Bentham enticed the modern world at the time of their publication, including the people of the U.S. The concept of utilitarianism started shaping America many years ago, and it is important to realize its consequence in modern day
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
Philosophy has been a field of study for centuries. Some philosophers have developed ways to determine what is ethical and what is not. This has led to several normative ethical theories describing how people are ought to live a moral life. Some of the most prominent of these theories have set the criteria for morality in very unique and peculiar ways. Two of which are the ethical egoistic theory and the utilitarian theory, each seeing morality in its own distinctive way. By comparing and contrasting the view these theories pose on morality and by analyze how each stands in some of the world’s most modern day issues, one can understand why utilitarianism is a
Utilitarianism provides a foundation for creating and testing different ideas and it offers an objective way of solving conflicts of self-interest that you would get by using the egoism theory. By following the utilitarianism theory you recognize the groups that are involved and/or society in part of the decision making process to determine if something is ethically correct or not. Utilitarianism does not allow a person to put his/her interests or actions first, someone who follows the theory of utilitarianism thinks in the best interest of the minority of the group involved. The last one is it can easily resolve conflicts of
The aim of utilitarianism in general is optimal happiness, which is the only intrinsic good according to Mill. More specifically, act and rule utilitarianism differ in the manner in which they asses what will yield the greatest amount of happiness. Often, one of the objections to utilitarianism is that it is overly demanding. However, this objection that the utilitarian view is too demanding is fitting for both forms of utilitarianism, according to the Fundamentals of Ethics. In the following, I will address why utilitarianism is habitually seen as overly demanding, and I will provide a defense of utilitarianism contrary to these objections.
Many people agree on the fact that society needs to act with a sense of morality. However, there are differing opinions on how to go about this. One popular idea is that a person should always consider the greater good of society in order to be moral. This moral principle is known as utilitarianism. The end result of this theory is happiness for all, which appeals to many people, since happiness is typically a goal everyone can agree to strive towards. The following examines the approach of utilitarianism from the perspective of John Stuart Mils, as well as looks its strengths and weakness’s through a thought argument, to demonstrate how this is played out in society.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory, meaning the morality of our actions is judged according to the consequences they bring about. According to utilitarianisms, all our actions should promote happiness. For Mill, happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain. In this paper, I will discuss the objection to Utilitarianism that is only fit for a swine, and Mill’s responses to that objection. Those people who reject this moral theory will say utilitarianism does not grant human life enough value compared to that of a pig. Mill gives an effective response and states that humans can and are the only ones that experiences higher pleasures and qualities of life, which make a human's life better than a pig's life.
John Stuart Mill claims that people often misinterpret utility as the test for right and wrong. This definition of utility restricts the term and denounces its meaning to being opposed to pleasure. Mill defines utility as units of happiness caused by an action without the unhappiness caused by an action. He calls this the Greatest Happiness Principle or the Principle of Utility. Mill’s principle states that actions are right when they tend to promote happiness and are wrong when they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is defined as pain and the lack of pleasure. Therefore, Mill claims, pleasure and happiness are the only things desirable and good. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism claims that act...
In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.
The purpose of this paper is to explain how Utilitarianism supports Mill’s Liberty Principle. The Liberty Principle, or harm principle, simply states that the only way someone can stop another person from doing what they want, against their will, is if it will cause harm to others. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, basically states that the goal of an action or event is to make the most people the happiest. In reference to the greatest happiness principle, the opposite of happiness is not necessarily sadness but is simply referred to as the “opposite of happiness;” and this is important to keep in mind when listening to the argument that I will present later on in the paper. I find that the following considerations: the definitions of both the harm principle and utilitarianism, and specific quotes from Mill’s book “On Liberty;” provide a convincing argument as to why utilitarian’s should in fact support Mill’s liberty principle.
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
This principle promotes a life of more pleasure than pain by choosing actions that produce more happiness. These are conscious actions made that follow a life of utility and act in accordance with the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” Though Mill’s critics would argue that Utilitarianism is not a reasonable foundation for morality by not fulfilling a life of happiness, creating selfish or expedient people, and reducing human experience to animals, I would have to disagree. This principle promotes happiness and pleasure for all, along with aiding individuals to be less selfish, and an even slate for people of all characters. I find the “Greatest Happiness Principle” to be a relevant and altruistic foundation of morality. There is an emphasis on lives containing more pleasure than pain under the rule that one person cannot put their own happiness above others. I think a type of morality such as this would be more successful than other forms of morality because it wants every human life to be a life filled with more pleasure than pain. I see this as an appropriate foundation because it promotes good over bad, which is ultimately the function of morality as a whole. As written by Raymond Plant, “Since the principle of the individual is to try to satisfy his desires…the principle of society should be to try to advance the satisfactions of those who belong to the society…”