Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarianism by john stuart mill analysis
Criticisms of utilitarianism theory by mill
Utilitarianism by john stuart mill analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Utilitarianism by john stuart mill analysis
A major problem in society John Stuart Mill highlights is that there is not a set standard for judging what makes something right or wrong. Clearing these principles is one of the fundamental steps for consensus on moral thinking. Mill believes that what makes something right or wrong is based on whether it is thought of as “good”. However, this only further raises the question on what is considered good. Mill purposes the goodness as a principle of utility, otherwise known as greatest happiness principle. Whatever brings about the most happiness is what is the most good. While others argue that natural instincts disprove the principle of utility as well as any other standard on morals, Mill believes the consistency of moral beliefs throughout history shows that there is in fact some kind of foundation.
The main idea behind the utilitarianism is that all actions are done to bring about the maximum amount of happiness. One could argue that often times what brings happiness for one person can hurt another person. However, Mill’s idea focuses on the maximum happiness of the world at large and not just that of a specific person. Mill’s utilitarianism does not include happiness of a person that results in a general decrease of the happiness of society as a whole. Therefore an action can be labeled as right if it promotes general happiness of a society and wrong if it reverses the happiness of a society. What brings about happiness is pleasure and what reverses happiness is pain.
The value of different pleasures is also a point of interest for Mill. Mill’s version of utilitarianism requires a comparison between different types of pleasures. Mill says that pleasure can be measured by both quality and quantity. A pleasure could be consi...
... middle of paper ...
...laves as possible. Is it still valid to call it “good” if one is able to fulfill this desire? Leaving moral judgment to be based off of human desires can turn downhill because sometimes people may desire something that is either trivial, crazy, or atrocious. Those who defend preference utilitarianism may try to set limits on the types of desires good and bad could be based on. For example if a person was found to be extremely uneducated, the goals they would want to achieve may not reflect what they would desire if they knew more about the world.
While Mill’s utilitarianism was extremely well thought out, it has its limitations. Similarly, preference utilitarianism also has it flaws. Truthfully, moral thinking and judgment cannot have a straightforward answer. The proper guideline of morality most likely rests somewhere in the middle of these and other theories.
Mill grew up under the influences from his father and Bentham. In his twenties, an indication of the cerebral approach of the early Utilitarians led to Mill’s nervous breakdown. He was influential in the growth of the moral theory of Utilitarianism whose goal was to maximize the personal freedom and happiness of every individual. Mill's principle of utility is that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Utilitarianism is the concept that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote happiness for the greatest number of individual. He believes that Utilitarianism must show how the conversion can be made from an interest in one’s own particular bliss to that of others. John Stuart Mill also states that moral action should not be judged on the individual case but more along the lines of “rule of thumb” and says that individuals ought to measure the outcomes and settle on their choices in view of the consequence and result that advantages the most people. Mill believes that pleasure is the only wanted consequence. Mill supposes that people are gifted with the capacity for conscious thought, and they are not happy with physical delights, but rather endeavor to accomplish the joy of the psyche too. He asserts that individuals want pleasure and reject
The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong if they tend to deliver despondency or torment. Mill believes that the principle of utility is the perfect way to evaluate ethics is through the individual's happiness. People who have the opportunity to chose or purse there own form of happiness usually makes really wise ethical decisions, which improves society. I agree with mill’s theory because happiness always produces good things, which would very beneficial to the
From top to bottom, John Stuart Mill put forth an incredible essay depicting the various unknown complexities of morality. He has a remarkable understanding and appreciation of utilitarianism and throughout the essay the audience can grasp a clearer understanding of morality. Morality, itself, may never be totally defined, but despite the struggle and lack of definition it still has meaning. Moral instinct comes differently to everyone making it incredibly difficult to discover a basis of morality. Society may never effectively establish the basis, but Mill’s essay provides people with a good idea.
Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, and they are not satisfied with physical pleasures, but they strive to achieve pleasure of the mind as well.
Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."(Mill) Utilitarian’s choices and decisions are based on the results of having the maximum number of happiness to the minimal number of pain. For instance, with this case study, Utilitarianism would be pro for the shooting of the intruder. The reasoning behind this is if the intruder were to open fire on the family, there would be several casualties. Whereas if you were to shoot the intruder there would only be one casualty. This would maximize the happiness with having more lives saved, rather than the pain with more lives lost. With saving more lives you are going with the majority which is the amount of people being saved for the one life that is loss. Also Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. Meaning in this example that watching your family die would be extremely painful for yourself and the loved ones going through the tragedy. But saving your family would create happiness or “pleasure” because they are now safe and not in any type of danger. The pleasure of saving your family greatly outweighs the pain that would come from watching your family die. Having to mourn all the
Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that explains whether a moral is good or bad;our actions affects not only to oneself but to others. Mill explains that pleasure is the absence of pain.The reason we do anything in life is to avoid pain. Also Mill interpret utilitarianism to be “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness”. Increasing the amount happiness produce greater happiness and reducing negative consequences to all.
Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as follows:According to the Greatest Happiness Principle … The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments.Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas may be identified: (1) The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A "good" man is one who considers the other man's pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own.
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 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.
At the same time, some happiness is of more value than others when they are compared based on preference both on the basis of quality and quantity (Mill 52-53). It is for this reason that most, if not all human beings will prefer to remain discontent humans who can reason than very content and satisfied humans who cannot reason. Therefore, while what brings happiness is said to be the “morally right” thing, the effect is also considered. Mill uses the biblical “golden rule” to support this, do onto others on what you wish to have done on you. This, according to Mill, represents the ideal perfection of this moral theory (utilitarianism) because it compares the happiness of an individual with the society in
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...
In utilitarianism, the word utility is used in a very formal sense and not in the dry vernacular of everyday language. At first glance it would seem that unity and pleasure cannot coexist in Mill's world. But Mill argues that attainment of pleasure is the very center of utilitarianism. According to his Greatest Happiness Principle, any action that promotes happiness and prevents pain is right and any action that produces the reverse of happiness is wrong. For utilitarianism the entirety of moral inquiry lies in the possession of happiness. But it is important to realize that to Mill Individual happiness is secondary to the happiness of the society as a whole. Furthermore, he argues that even though the "noble character" of an individual may give him dissatisfaction it is desirable because “there can be no doubt that it makes other people happy” (Mill). Even though nobleness of character may decrease the pleasure for an individual, the aggregate happiness increases from the presence of such character. Accordingly, happiness is not only the promotion of pleasure but also the absence...
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
To live a moral and ethical life, one must first determine what is truly moral. There are many philosophical theories arguing different views of ethics. One of the primary theories is utilitarianism, which is a normative ethical theory which has been established and defended by two renowned philosophers named Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill. This theory simply states that one should always act to provide the maximum happiness to the greatest number. After much objection to this general rule, two views of utilitarianism emerged. The first is called the act utilitarianism and the second is rule utilitarianism, the divide gives a less absolute option by using rules.
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…”