Milner's Response to Too High for Humanity

783 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Utilitarianism and its flaws

Too High for Humanity

This paper will evaluate the merits of the argument “Too high for humanity” against the validity the theory Utilitarianism. More specifically we will introduce the argument, Milner’s responses to the argument then analyze the arguments’ structure, validity and soundness.

The argument “Too high for humanity” is the notion that: if being morally right only exists when people maximize pleasure to society, then it is something that humans are not capable of. To clarify, this is implying that humans, by nature, are not willing to sacrifice themselves for the maximum gain of society; thus the practice of Utilitarianism is beyond humans and not a practical theory to judge morality. Expanding from this; another point raised is that since only the act that maximizes happiness is right; therefore, anyone who does not choose the act that will provide maximum happiness is wrong. This play on words is actually very significant when we visualize a scenario of our hypothetical weekend. Imagine a weekend where you commit no “wrong”, by utilitarian standards. You are up at 12, because your sleep brings about less happiness than results your commitment to start a new homeless. This homeless shelter is a heavy investment on your time and however the prospect of reintegrating these people back in society brings about greater happiness. In short aside from a lack of motive in sacrificing yourself, Utilitarianism’s view of right and wrong is far too demanding. Another issue this touches upon is that utilitarianism can contradict popular beliefs on moral issues. For example, in the hypothetical case of Pinky and his Grandmother (where Pinky poisons his sick grandmother but discovers a cure for his grandmother’s sickness instead),...

... middle of paper ...

...ct maximizes overall happiness (check plag). There is a logical fallacy with Milner’s response as motives are a necessary precursor to actions. For example consider a society where no one had extra money and was indifferent to saving lives. Under these assumptions, if a man saw a drowning baby he likely, would not save the baby as he would not get any pleasure from saving it. Therefore he will have no incentive to save the baby and the act will not happen; in fact it will never happen as everyone would be in the same situation. Basically despite what Milner believes, motives play a big part in the occurrences of action.

In conclusion, since the argument “Too high for humanity” is sound and Milner’s response cannot satisfactorily refute the argument, Milner’s response fails and the objection “Too High for Humanity” still remains as a shortcoming of Utilitarianism.

Show More
Related

  • Compare And Contrast John Hospers And Rule Utilitarianism

    1570 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Use of Human Fetal Tissue in Research is Morally Repugnant

    2072 Words  | 5 Pages

    The bottom line is that utilitarianism has a derisory view in human character and motives. Man is not good and will never be good which is reflected on the current world scene today. Man will do anything that has a good result yet the process is immoral. Sproul sums this ethic up by stating, “In balancing positive and negative utilities and excluding from the equation the objective sacredness of all human life, utilitarianism arrives at morally repugnant actions” (41).

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill: Exploring 19th Century Utilitarianism

    1388 Words  | 3 Pages

    The second classic criticism of Utilitarian Principle is that Mill’s dichotomy of higher and lower pleasures create the need to calculate the happiness derived from each category of pleasures. This has left critics asking “Is a dissatisfied Socrates better off than a satisfied fool?” In response, Mill says that people learn to distinguish physical (or lower) pleasures from mental (or higher) pleasures with training. We possess the tendency to favor the higher pleasures, as we are human beings rather than mere

    Read More

  • Is rule-utilitarianism preferable to act-utilitarianism

    1769 Words  | 4 Pages

    Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Stuart Mill

    1161 Words  | 3 Pages

    In utilitarianism the common goal is to create the most happiness for the most amount of people. Mills definition of the Greatest Happiness Principle “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (540) If this principle is the case then as a utilitarian your actions of good should promote the most happiness. This way of thinking can really produce some wrong answers and actions to moral questions. For example, say you and your family are starving and in need of food. The only possible way to get food would be to steal it. In general society finds it morally wrong to steal under any circumstances. But as utilitarian you have to ask, would my actions of stealing food promote the most happiness for the most people. You need to take into account the people you are making happy and the people you are hurting. On one hand, you would be promoting happiness for you and your and entire family, and on the other hand, you would be hurting the storeowner by stealing some of his revenue. Utilitarian ideas tell you that you should steal the food because your actions are promoting happiness and the absence of pain for the least amount of people. There are other examples I found when doing some research like doctors going against morals to save more sick people by letting one healthy person die

    Read More

  • Euthanasia and Ethics: Kant and Stewart Mill

    950 Words  | 2 Pages

    Mill, John Stewart. "Utilitarianism: John Stewart Mill." Fifty Readings Plus: An Introduction to Philosophy. Ed. Donald C. Abel. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 416-25. Print.

    Read More

  • Mill's Utilitarianism

    984 Words  | 2 Pages

    Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory, meaning the morality of our actions is judged according to the consequences they bring about. According to utilitarianisms, all our actions should promote happiness. For Mill, happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain. In this paper, I will discuss the objection to Utilitarianism that is only fit for a swine, and Mill’s responses to that objection. Those people who reject this moral theory will say utilitarianism does not grant human life enough value compared to that of a pig. Mill gives an effective response and states that humans can and are the only ones that experiences higher pleasures and qualities of life, which make a human's life better than a pig's life.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism

    1254 Words  | 3 Pages

    Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism

    2011 Words  | 5 Pages

    Utilitarianism is the system of values stating that maximizing the total happiness of all people is good. Happiness of people should be sacrificed only to bring greater happiness to other people. Psychologically, immediate happiness corresponds to what you want. Pain, including psychological distress, is the opposite of happiness. Actual happiness is not the same as apparent happiness: A person experiencing strong physical pleasure may suffer hidden psychological distress; the inner desire of martyrs to do what is right can override obvious physical pain. People do not always do what they want because sacrificing immediate happiness is often best to achieve long-term happiness of themselves and others. Utilitarianism per se does not answer the question of how many people should be created. However, creating too many people will damage the environment and thus impair the long term ability to have large population on Earth. Moreover, it is generally agreed that if the society can allow all people to be prosperous and thriving and that creating extra people will undermine that ability, then extra people should not be created.

    Read More

  • Arguments Against Utilitarianism

    1464 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Kant vs. Mill: Human Rights and Utilitarianism

    1725 Words  | 4 Pages

    Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987). Utilitarianism and other essays. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

    Read More

  • Ethics : Approaching Moral Decisions

    1162 Words  | 3 Pages

    Holmes offers three criticisms of utilitarianism. How is one going to achieve it so that it does benefit the highest number of people? How do you decide how to distribute the benefits in the best possible way? I agree that it would be very hard to decide the best way to distribute the benefits equally. How would a person decide if you do it over time or all at once? Utilitarianism sounds like a good way to live, as there are times it is necessary to safe the individuals t...

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Ethical Egoism And Utilitarianism

    1135 Words  | 3 Pages

    Philosophy has been a field of study for centuries. Some philosophers have developed ways to determine what is ethical and what is not. This has led to several normative ethical theories describing how people are ought to live a moral life. Some of the most prominent of these theories have set the criteria for morality in very unique and peculiar ways. Two of which are the ethical egoistic theory and the utilitarian theory, each seeing morality in its own distinctive way. By comparing and contrasting the view these theories pose on morality and by analyze how each stands in some of the world’s most modern day issues, one can understand why utilitarianism is a

    Read More

  • Jeremy Bentham : Father of Utilitarianism

    1451 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Essay On The Principle Of Morality

    1144 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...ause of the adaptability of moral principles to utilize in situations such as George the chemist. George illuminates that happiness and suffering are very hard to compete with each other, and even if more happiness is on the table, it can lead to suffering and possible injustices that may occur. In the grand scheme of things, utilitarianism will not be able to work in all situations because it causes injustices and lacks integrity. Opposition to utilitarianism says that a correct moral theory will never require us to commit injustices, so utilitarianism is not the correct moral theory. Concluding that utilitarianism is a good moral theory to start from, because it spells out a goal and a consequence, but when these aspects are mixed up in the situation, ranking and the specificity of happiness are what it all comes down to. Maximize happiness and minimize suffering.

    Read More

More about Milner's Response to Too High for Humanity

Open Document