Mill Utilitarianism

In this paper, I shall defend the premises as the lives of innocent people should not be sacrificed based on a moral theory like utilitarianism where the pleasure of many outweigh the pain of one. There is however room to question if utilitarianism should be rejected as there are many forms of utilitarianism that have come about which nullifies premise one and two. To defend the premises I will explore utilitarianism as a moral theory and draw data from scholarly articles on the topic to further develop my stance.

As mill says in his ESSAY utilitarians hold that, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Utilitarianism is a moral theory that focuses on the

results or the consequences of our actions and treats intentions as irrelevant. It almost justifies that good consequence would mean good actions would be performed.

Bernard Williams (chapter 23, 1973) gives a few examples on how choosing between lives using utilitarianism means that integrity is often compromised for the greater good of society.

A utilitarian suggests however, that integrity should be forgone to make the best decision for the aggregate. It is important to note that in many articles and books the situation they are placed in while choosing between people’s lives they are forced or coerced into choosing between people’s lives. This forces the person making the choice to choose the best possible situation with the greatest possible outcome (i.e. most happiness with least pain).

Morality in utilitarianism is based upon the principle of utility wherein a moral act would be one where the total utility in the world is increased. When choosing between lives in a utilitarian sense, it does not matter when a person makes the choice to bring in most happiness in the world by saving more lives as opposed to just one. Under the framework of utilitarianism, one must make moral decisions from the position of a bystander with no personal connect to the situation. In this sense, choosing between people’s lives becomes easier to choose.

However, most people have a subjective bias to morality and using this Mill argues that all morality can be in question if we were to view the world like this. This would mean utilitarianism should not be

rejected.

Taking into consideration the trolley and the transplant problem it would only seem obvious to save more than one life.

However, this goes against an intuitive sense of morality. Rule utilitarianism however, suggests that we must increase utility and make decisions based on the long run suggesting that the utility of the aggregate of the population should be maximized for the majority of time. So, take for instance, a society where innocent people are chosen to forcefully donate their organs is going to have a less utility than in a situation where one does not have to live in constant fear of that happening to them. Under rule utilitarianism there is strong and weak rule utilitarianism. One would think, using rule utilitarianism, the effect on people and the consequence of following that rule. Based on that, they can sometimes break the rule to increase the overall utility. This means the surgeon would not take the life of the innocent person to save five

others.

Utilitarianism does however seem transitive. It bases the idea that if two relations are established then a third can be deducted based on the same rules. That would mean if A has lesser value than B and B has lesser value than C, it would mean A has lesser value than A. This definitely highlights the perspective utilitarian follow, as the pleasure of many will always outweigh the pain of one.

Mills main argument for utilitarianism to be an accepted form of moral theory has much to do with human nature and sentiments. Humans are social animals and therefore if the society followed utilitarianism, every decision or act that is under-taken under the utilitarian framework would be justified and morally acceptable. Justice is based on humans desire to be happy and hence choosing between people’s lives would and making the choice that increases net pleasure would be considered morally right and intuitive if the whole society accepts it. This gives grounds for utilitarianism not to be rejected. This would mean utilitarianism offers a chance to remove sentiment from the equation and look at matters objectively.

In a practical sense it is rather hard to quantify happiness, which would make the process of decision-making rather difficult, and choosing between people’s lives would mean taking into account everyone affected by the decision. Quantifying happiness and predicting the good of the outcome is terribly biased and normative which gives clear grounds to reject utilitarianism. Mills does talk about how it is not the quantity of happiness that matters rather the quality of the happiness should matter. He also talks about how it is not enough to simply characterize actions as good or evil but rather why they are good or evil. Rule utilitarianism partially solves this issue.

Proving the premises to be true seemed futile, as seen in the essay there are many reasons to accept utilitarianism rather than rejecting it as a moral theory. As Williams says, “It is an attack on one’s integrity,” however nussbuams final paragraph highlights why utilitarianism shouldn’t be rejected, “Mill’s Utilitarianism is not a fully developed work. It frustrates philosophers who look for a tidy resolution to the many tensions it introduces into the Utilitarian system.”
Finally, if happiness is the sole criteria for morality, it seems only natural to prove that people desire nothing but happiness, which is complex. The concept seems like it does not protect the individual or there could be Tyranny of the masses however mills would say there is some protection for the individual and however unjust it may seem it is the only safety that can be guaranteed.