Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
John stuart mill's theory of utilitarianism
Utilitarianism objections
The case of utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: John stuart mill's theory of utilitarianism
Utilitarianism was initially a school of thought brought about by Jeremey Bentham throughout the late Eighteenth and early Nineteenth Centuries. John Stuart Mill would later go on to shape it closer to the form we know today. On the surface the Utilitarian way of thinking seems simple: every action must be done for the sake of the greater good. However, as one digs deeper into this notion it is clear that this cannot be achieved by relying solely on a common sense approach to life. In the following paragraphs we will explore the history of Utilitarianism and those who formed it, how it is meant to guide life, and how it is relevant to life in the Twenty-first Century. Jeremy Bentham spent most of his life focused on what he saw as failings in the justice system. He felt that there were “irrational and chaotic foundations” in the leadership of his time (Lawhead, p465). Bentham did not believe that morality was ingrained in every person from birth, or that moral laws were the same for everyone – and since there was no scientific proof of these things, things that the former government had come to regard as fact, Bentham dismissed them. What Bentham did believe was that pleasure and pain were experienced by each and every person, even if the sources were different. He also believed that achieving this pleasure was the end goal of every person. Even when a person does something that takes the pleasure of others into account, ultimately it is in order to indirectly promote their own pleasure. Therefore he came up with a method for calculating the amount of pain and pleasure that a situation created. Then, by adding up these amounts and determining which course of action provided the most pleasure, for all in the situation, he determi... ... middle of paper ... ... It is unlikely that society will be willing to respond to every situation with rationalization and logical thought – nor should they have to, for emotions have the power to give us a closer connection to the people surrounding us. Even if a person chooses to not make decisions based on Utilitarian logic, the principles are at least capable of opening a person up to the idea that their actions and decisions affect people other than themselves. Works Cited Bykvist, Krister. Utilitarianism: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum, 2010. eBook. Jamieson, Dale, et al. Singer and his Critics. Malden: Blackwell, 1999. Print. Lawhead, William. The Voyage of Discovery. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2007. Print. Mulgan, Tim. Understanding Utilitarianism. Stocksfield: Acumen, 2007. eBook. Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
With Utilitarianism as a whole, I view the idea as a concept that has the potential to be good in theory, but only to an extent, and as one that will, without a doubt, always fail in actual practice. In an argument against it, I view that with this mindset, while we try to focus on how to maximize a person or person’s pleasure/happiness/etc. we gloss over far too many other factors that can have a major effect on the morality of the concept. Along with the morality, sometimes when a person may find pleasurable can be detrimental to their physical and emotional health, their mental stability, and their relationships with others. My grasp of this concept leads me to believe that, if implemented, this could work for a very short amount of time,
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.
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...
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
Throughout this paper I will argue between Mil (Utilitarianism) and Held (Care Ethics). Mil is a British Philosopher well known for his ethical and political work and Held is an American Feminist and Moral Philosopher. After reading this essay you will have a good view on what Utilitarianism and Care Ethics is and also what my concluding position is.
Mill, John Stuart. "Utilitarianism." Gendler, Tamar Szabo, Susanna Siegel and Steven M. Cahn. The Elements of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. 77-80.
In Utilitarianism the aim of our actions is to achieve happiness for the greatest number of people. “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mill, 1971). Utilitarianism directly appeals to human emotions and our reactions to different events. Emotions are a fundamental Way of Knowing and influence both ethical and economical theories. In most cultures there are fundame...
During the mid-nineteenth century in Great Britain, the industrial revolution was in full swing and ideas were beginning to exponentially grow. These philosophical and practical ideas changed the way people thought, worked, and lived their everyday life. A few of the many ideas and inventions that arose were the railroad, steam power, powered machines, and utilitarianism. Utilitarianism was coined by John Stuart Mill and has been a popular way of thinking for over a century. In this paper, I will argue that John Stuart Mill’s idea of utilitarianism provides citizens with freedom along with a strong protection of their rights, and without it people would be oppressed by their government.
Many traditions and values of the American society are beneficial, but some are harmful. Acceptance of utilitarianism will preserve beneficial traditions while replacing the harmful ones. As a result, new traditions, grounded in reason, will emerge, and future generations may wonder how the irrational and unnatural non-utilitarian values had survived for so long.
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...
Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987). Utilitarianism and other essays. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Jeremy Bentham is widely regarded as the father of utilitarianism. He was born in 1748 into a family of lawyers and was himself, training to join the profession. During this process however, he became disillusioned by the state British law was in and set out to reform the system into a perfect one based on the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle,’ ‘the idea that pleasurable consequences are what qualify an action as being morally good’. Bentham observed that we are all governed by pain and pleasure; we all naturally aim to seek pleasure and avoid pain. He then decided that the best moral principle for governing our lives is one which uses this, the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle.’ This is that the amount of overall happiness or unhappiness that is caused by an action should determine whether an action is right or wrong. He stated,
In its political philosophy utilitarianism provides an alternative to theories of natural law and the social contract by basing the authority of government and the sanctity of individual rights upon their utility, or measure of happiness gained. As an egalitarian doctrine, where everyone’s happiness counts equally, the rational, relatively straightforward nature of utilitarianism offers an attractive model for democratic government. It offers practical methods for deciding the morally right course of action - “...an action is right as it tends to promote happiness, wrong as it tends to diminish it, for the party whose interests are in question” (Bentham, 1780). To discover what we should do in a given situation, we identify the various courses of action that we could take, then determine any foreseeable benefits and harms to all affected by the ramifications of our decision. In fact, some of the early pioneers of utilitarianism, such as Bentham and Mill, campaigned for equality in terms of women's suffrage, decriminalization of homosexuality, and abolition of slavery (Boralevi, 1984). Utilitarianism seems to support democracy as one could interpret governments working to promote the public interest and welfare of citizens as striving for liberty for the greatest amount of people. While utilitarianism at its heart is a theory that calls for progressive social change through peaceful political processes, there are some difficulties in relying on it as the sole method for moral decision-making. In this essay I will assess the effectiveness of utilitarianism as a philosophy of government by examining the arguments against it.
According to Peter Singer, like humans, many non-human animals are capable suffering; therefore, they should be given equal respect and consideration as humans. However, many non-human animals are not treated equally because non-human animals cannot hold rights that are given to humans, but this speciesism. Using speciesism to grant moral rights to animals is wrong and irrelevant. An action is only right if it prevents pain and speciesism fail to do that and violates the basic principle of equality. However, equality does not require equal rights rather it requires equal consideration. Equal consideration should depend on the nature of subjects rather than the species of subjects. In the utilitarian approach, any action is right if its consequences promote happiness or
Bentham devised The Greatest Happiness Principle that states “that actions are immoral if they are not the action that appears to maximise the happiness of all the people likely to be affected; only the action that appears to maximise the happiness of all the people likely to be affected is the morally right action.” Bentham used his happiness principle to help decide how legal matters would go and created the Hedonic Calculus which was a way to calculate the amount of pleasure that would be derived from an action. There were multiple factors that were taken into account when using the Hedonic calculus but generally which ever decision yielded the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people would be the decision