Although Mill’s points seem to be on a course of a reliable ethical principle, there are however flaws to be found in utilitarianism. Utilizing utilitarianism as a society's primary doctrine would prove to be unfavorable in many circumstances. Utilitarianism is flawed if implemented in the system of equity or justice as unfair sacrifices for the goal of the greatest-happiness would arise and diminish people’s chances of receiving true fairness. Innocents may be penalized based on the ethical conclusion that utilitarianism could draw. This is not a demonstration of true justice as punishing the innocent is a violation of one’s rights and would be considered as a form of injustice. Utilitarianism takes a flawed approach in measuring happiness …show more content…
The two thought experiments Williams engenders are the situation of George, who is a chemist presented with an option to provide for his family in a laboratory that creates biochemical weapons and Jim, a botanist faced with twenty Native Americans, presented to either kill one and spare the nineteen or kill none and have them all die because of his indecision. Utilitarianism would argue it is best for George to take the weapons job as it would allow him to provide for his family, however, create casualties and for Jim to kill one Native American to spare the …show more content…
The general condition is that there are a group of people trapped on the track of a trolley’s course. The trolley can be diverted by the agent however if so, one person will have to die as a consequence. The utilitarian notion claims that it would be best to simply divert the trolley in order to hit the one person as fewer casualties would arise from it. The reasoning for this is that since most people are spared, the most happiness is achieved. Albeit one casualty has occurred, it was the best option in the result as the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Because of this, utilitarianism claims it is moral that diverting the trolley’s direction to hit the one individual is the ethically right option.
Examining both viewpoints, there are a few, rather minimal quandaries for the theory of utilitarianism. One must discern to some extent that the general premise of the greatest happiness principle, in what is best for the many the best outcome, is emphatical in regards to deriving at an ethical
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.
In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,
The ethical theory of utilitarianism has one basis, one must chose the action that will contribute to the greatest good; the greatest good for the greatest number. In any instance one may ask, which action will make the most people happy and how long? As a method
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
The main principle of utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle. It states that, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure" (Mill, 1863, Ch. 2, p330). In other words, it results with the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people that are involved.
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...
There were some moral problems that Mill ran into with his principle. One of the first problems was that actions are right to promote happiness, but wrong as they sometimes tend to produce unhappiness. By moving a victim from a mangled car would be the noble thing to do but what if pulling him from the wreck meant killing him. He intended to produce a happy outcome, but in the end he created an unhappy situation. Utilitarianism declares that men can live just as well without happiness. Mill says yes, but men do not conduct their lives, always seeking happiness. Happiness does not always mean total bliss.
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?’.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
Utilitarianism is a reality, not just a theory like many other philosophies; it is practiced every day, for instance the vote system. This ongoing practice of utilitarianism in society has show that it is flawed. Just because the masses vote for something, doesn’t make it right. The masses can be fooled, as in Nazi Germany for example, thousands of people were behind Hitler even though his actions were undeniably evil. Utilitarianism is a logical system, but it requires some sort of basic, firm rules to prevent such gross injustices, violations of human rights, and just obviously wrong thing ever being allowed. This could be the ‘harm principle’ which Mill devised.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory in which determining the rightness or wrongness of action or decision is based on determining whether the greatest benefit or happiness will be provided in the highest or greatest number of population. This simply means that action or decision must be based on the highest amount or number of beneficiary (Martineau, 2006). However, this ethical theory has two major types. First is the “act utilitarianism” and second is the “rule utilitarianism.” Act utilitarianism specifically adh...
In Mill's book Utilitarianism he makes a distinction between act and rule-utilitarianism. Both types of utilitarianism are not without great flaw and therefore cannot exist as a base for moral principle. By adding the branch of rule-utilitarianism to the utilitarian tree Mill tries to compensate for some of act-utilitarian's flaws but as seen rule-utilitarianism has it's own objections and does not improve on the simple of act-utilitarianism thought out by previous philosophers. Rule-utilitarianism just patches-up some of act-utilitarian holes only it does not cover the entire thing. Therefore utilitarianism is not a good theory for moral rightness.
In light of the explanations above it can be argued that in utilitarian approach there are different kind of challenges which posing serious threat to utilitarianism in a direction to achieve greatest happiness principles. First of all, utilitarian approach is a problematic from point of demanding issue because theory contradicts within itself about motives of our actions and criterion about it. Second challenge about utilitarianism is that the approach missed the analyze the real world conditions about personal experiences and cultural differences about experience. Third questionable idea about utilitarian school is that it has consequentialist points of view which may damage societal welfare and overall happiness because of personal expediency issue.
Utilitarianism is a movement in ethics which began in the late eighteenth centaury and is primarily associated with the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham and was later adapted and fully developed by John Stuart Mill in the ninetieth century. . The theory states that we should try to achieve ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics. Teleological theories of ethics look at the consequences to decide whether an action is right or wrong. Utilitarianism is defined as a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of it consequences: specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible
Mill’s critics would likely say that Utilitarianism as a whole can function to create selfish people because all are striving towards a life of more pleasure than pain, but Mill shuts this down with the idea of happiness being impartial. Basically, a person must choose an action that yields the most happiness or pleasure, whether that pleasure is for them or not. Mill would recognize that, “Among the qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends, and it is in this that people acquire the sense that they have moral intuitions superior to mere self-interest” (Wilson). By this, it is meant that although people are supposed to take action that will produce the greatest pleasure, the do not do so in a purely selfish manner. Mill goes on to argue that the happiness of individuals is interconnected; therefore one cannot be selfish in such a way. Along with the criticism of Utilitarianism and the principle of utility being selfish, many argue that such a doctrine promotes expediency in order to benefit the person conducting the action alone. I would disagree with these criticisms, and find Mill’s argument valid. His argument counters