Four of the instances in which Mill responded are following:
a) Standard is too high: The objectors to utilitarianism can’t be accused of always
representing it in a discreditable light. On the contrary, objectors who have anything like a
correct idea of its disinterested character sometimes find fault with utilitarianism’s standard as
being too high for humanity. To require people always to act from the motive of promoting the
general interests of society—that is demanding too much, they say.
b) A godless theory: Utilitarianism plays fast and loose with god's commandments. If lying,
stealing or killing could lead to an increase of happiness we should be told that we should lie,
steal or kill.
The objector attacks Mill by saying that Utilitarianism is a
…show more content…
godless doctrine and how is theory supposed to hold up in society, which the majority is religious, where the theory does not even utter God’s name?
Mill supports Utilitarianism by stating that this theory revolves around
people’s overall happiness and this is what God desires, so in fact this theory includes God
indirectly. Mill’s defense is a rather weak one. It makes sense at first, but this is assuming that
God is all loving and wants the best for everyone and as we concluded with DCT, God is not all
loving. So since the DCT theory does not hold and God is not all loving, Mill’s defense is weak.
c) Label of expectancy: Utilitarianism is often conflated with Expediency, and therefore
considered immoral. However, "expedient" usually refers to acting against what is right for the
sake of personal interest or short-term goals. Thus, instead of being useful, this meaning of
expediency is actually harmful. Mill would argue that hurting society is not truly expedient, and
that to act against society's interests is to be an enemy of morality.
d) Too much deliberation: Mill looks into morality as a social practice and not as autonomous
self-determination by reason. According to Mill, our moral obligations result from the justified
part of the moral code of our society; and the task of moral philosophy consists in bringing
the moral code of a society in better accordance with the principle of utility. For other philosophers, moral deliberation determines those actions which we have the most reason to perform. Mill disagrees from them it makes sense to say that “A is the right thing to do for Jeremy, but Jeremy is not morally obliged to do A.” For instance, even if Jeremy is capable of writing a brilliant book that would improve the life of millions (and deteriorate none), he is not morally obliged to do so.
In order to understand the truth, people must have solid justified beliefs to prevent diminished autonomy. As humans, we are motivated to practice morally good actions since God provides love. His act of caring is compelling and promotes gratitude.
Further on in the text, Mill even seems to minimize the importance of the first principle by declaring that it is only useful for settling disputes ove...
It appears that the problem of evil is a substantial one. While arguments exist that can challenge assumptions of the problem, it sometimes requires some definition contorting and does not answer all the challenges evil presents. The greater good defense presents some key insights into how we must perceive God’s actions but does not completely defend against the presented problems of evil. Therefore, a more plausible defense is needed to eliminate the problems evil creates with the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
...Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another.
In relation to social obligations and advancement of society, Mill writes advocating the expression of one’s opinion as the main driving force. Mill states, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in sile...
For Mill, the freedom that enables each individual to explore his or her own particular way of life is essential for a generous and diverse development of humanity. The only source of potential within society to further continue human development is the spontaneity or creativity that lies within each individual. Mill has a utilitarian view on freedom. He was especially keen on individual liberty because it allowed the greatest measure of happiness. His concern is not to declare liberty as a natural right but to rather set out the appropriate constraints within ‘Civil or Social liberty’. Civil liberty is defined as the limit society can exert its legitimate power over each individual and social liberty has much to do with a political principle
In order for the insistence that equity and impartiality to hold true to Mill's Utility, we must find a foundation from within his argumentation that will support it. Thus we turn to Mill's sanctions, or incentives that he proposes to drive one towards the path of Utility. Mill's first sanction, the internal sanction, leads one to act ethically because of the fear of displeasure that might arise from other people if one does not act in this manner. Mill justifies that individuals desire the warmness of others as an incentive to acting unselfishly in the attempt to acquire the greatest good, and fear the dissatisfaction of others. Mill's second sanction, the internal sanction, is in essence an individual's inner conscience. With the assumption that the conscience is pure and free from corruption, Mill implies that satisfaction is brought forth to the conscience when one successfully and ethically commits to one's duties, the duty of Utility. What is undesired is the feeling of dissatisfaction that spawns when one does not act dutifully. In order for this rationale to make sense, one must do what is almost unavoid...
...d in the discussion of promise keeping and beneficence, identifiable logical or practical contradictions arise when attempting to universalize morally impermissible maxims (according to the CI). Mill argues that the CI only shows “that the consequences of [the maxims] universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.” This is erroneous for there is no such “choice” available. The logical and practical contradictions that Mill fails to recognize produce an outcome (rejection of the maxim) necessitated by rationality and a free will. It is not that the consequences are unpleasant, but that their production is irrational.
John Stuart Mill believes in a utilitarian society where people are seen as “things.” Moreover, in utilitarianism the focus of the goal is “forward-looking”, in looking at the consequences but not the ini...
...ave the freedm to make mistakes and have discussions and debates in a healthy setting where others can learn from each other, and be able to raise their voice without having to be worried by the idea of being bullied. He strongly believed in having the freedom to develop your own personality and having the strength to make choices. Mills is only able to see progress in society if we enter a world of culture, free conformity, and harm. We must be given the right to free expression, freedom and the right to liberty without the fear of threat or being silenced. It’s because of these justifications that mill believes that mankind would not be justified in silencing an individual just like that one inidivdual, if given the power to do so, would not be justified in silencing all of mankind. Through these actions, we as humans will create the ultimate gaood for mankind.
Mills starts out in his first argument by being concerned that people were being silenced when voicing their opinions. He voices that by saying: “First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility”(50). Mills means that when someone’s opinion is being silenced by another, the latter will assume that their believes are to be true.
My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary, but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective. The harm principle was published in Mill’s work, Of Liberty, in 1859. He states, “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant (978).” This means that government is not able to control peoples’ actions unless they are causing harm to other individuals.
Philosophy has offered many works and debates on morality and ethics. One of these works is the concept of utilitarianism. One of the most prominent writers on the theory of utilitarianism is John Stuart Mill. He suggests that utilitarianism may be the guide for morality. His writing on utilitarianism transcends through the present in relation to the famous movie The Matrix. In the movie, people live in a virtual reality where they are relatively happy and content and the real world is filled with a constant struggle to survive. The movie revolves around Neo, who tries to free people from the virtual world in which they live. In light of utilitarianism, freeing these people would be morally wrong. In this essay, I will first explain John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism and some objections it faces. I will then talk about utilitarianism’s relation to The Matrix and why it would be morally wrong to free the people and subject them to the real world.
In this instance, Mill would agree with the court ruling because, like his views concerning free exercise of will, government restriction and majority rule, both the court ruling and Mill’s ideals are concerned for the best interests of the individual rather than for the greater good of society. Complete free exercise will inhibit individual and societal freedom. According to Mill, one may act as one chooses unless one is inflicting harm on others. He argues that one is free to behave “according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself” as long as “he refrains from molesting” (64). The problem arises in the freedom allowed to the individual performing the potentially dangerous act.
...attainment of happiness is oftentimes difficult, so we are morally justified in searching to essentially reduce the amount of unhappiness and pain experienced by the human beings impacted by some of our actions. According to Mill, the absence of pleasure is only acceptable when it is for the greater good of humanity.