Mills Mill Mills Utilitarianism

897 Words2 Pages

Mill’s Utilitarianism varies from the most general form of utilitarianism, which claims that one should assess persons, actions, and institutions by how well they promote humans’ happiness. Mill branches off of this basic explanation by interpreting the misconceptions of utilitarianism into utility. This utility is something in opposition to pleasure. In order words, mill utilitarianism utility is the greatest happiness principle. Going along the ultimate end in an accordance to the greatest happiness principle is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison. This, being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality. Which by definition are rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of existing, described to the greatest extent possible, and secured to all mankind and to nature. Mills does have a portion in the book where he states, “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.” Coming from mills that seem to be very much a hedonist. In addition to this statement, Mills backs it up by implying that all or almost all people prefer a “manner of existence”. This so to speak manner of existence employs higher faculties to a manner of existence that does not. With emphasis on “all or almost” those who are acquainted with pleasures that employ higher faculties agree that they are prefe... ... middle of paper ... ...g on someone’s or some group’s rights. So if a few must suffer in order for the needs of the many it can prove very bad because of the moral obligation involving rights in this case are severe. Finally in my reason of finding this theory unattractive, is the fact that utilitarianism seems to view people as vessels of pleasure and pain rather than as people. Mills might respond to the case of “framing an innocent person if doing so seems like it will maximize happiness.” That we all, may or may not obtain the greatest happiness. To do the right thing in this situation, we do not need to be constantly motivated by concern for the general happiness. The large majority of actions are intended for the greater good of individuals rather than the good of the world. Likewise, the world’s good is in direct correlation with the good of the individuals that constitute it.

Open Document