More handpicked essays just for you.
David hume ideas and impressions
Exploring ethics an introductory anthology chapter 12
Analysis of ethical theories
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In this paper I will present and critically assess the concept of the principle of utility as given by John Stuart Mill. In the essay “What Utilitarianism Is” #, Mill presents the theory of Utilitarianism, which he summarizes in his “utility” or “greatest happiness principle” # (Mill 89). Mill’s focus is based on an action’s resulting “happiness,” # pleasure and absences of pain, or “unhappiness,” # discomfort and the nonexistence of contentment, rather than the intentions involved (Mill 89). After evaluating Mill’s principle, I will then end this essay by discussing my personal opinion about the doctrine and how I believe it can be altered to better suit real-life situations. The principle of utility is based on the greatest amount of happiness an action results in to the largest quantity of people who are affected by the consequences (Mill 89). Mill believes people should sacrifice as much as they can from their own possible happiness so that more people may obtain equal happiness that is sufficient. In doing so, those who are aiding others are creating a society of ultimate happiness where everyone is content. Thus, Mill argues for quantity over quality to the extent where everyone has just enough contentment that they do not feel pain or deprivation. For example, according to the principle, if in the future there is an unbiased computerized system for selecting organ donors, those who are selected to donate their organs to two or more people are obligated to do so. In doing so, the single individual is saving the lives of a greater number of people, and thus creates more happiness than if he alone lived and the two or more people died. In discussing if people would be motivated to relinquish their own prosperity to aid o... ... middle of paper ... ...ins more faults than he mentioned. I do agree to the principle of utility relative to maximizing happiness for the most amount of people possible. However, in regards to my example about the computerized system that sacrifices a healthy person to save the lives of other’s, the use of the principle would be morally and ethically wrong. Although people have the choice to become organ donors, in the example, the computer would be killing someone instead of using an already deceased person’s organs to save another’s life. This issue is an example of the differences between Kant and Mill, which I believe if combined can make Mill‘s theory better suited for real-life situations. Intentions are not always the most significant factors similarly to how results are not. Therefore, combining certain aspects of Kant’s theory with Mill’s would make Mill’s work more appropriate.
Mill grew up under the influences from his father and Bentham. In his twenties, an indication of the cerebral approach of the early Utilitarians led to Mill’s nervous breakdown. He was influential in the growth of the moral theory of Utilitarianism whose goal was to maximize the personal freedom and happiness of every individual. Mill's principle of utility is that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Utilitarianism is the concept that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote happiness for the greatest number of individual. He believes that Utilitarianism must show how the conversion can be made from an interest in one’s own particular bliss to that of others. John Stuart Mill also states that moral action should not be judged on the individual case but more along the lines of “rule of thumb” and says that individuals ought to measure the outcomes and settle on their choices in view of the consequence and result that advantages the most people. Mill believes that pleasure is the only wanted consequence. Mill supposes that people are gifted with the capacity for conscious thought, and they are not happy with physical delights, but rather endeavor to accomplish the joy of the psyche too. He asserts that individuals want pleasure and reject
The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong if they tend to deliver despondency or torment. Mill believes that the principle of utility is the perfect way to evaluate ethics is through the individual's happiness. People who have the opportunity to chose or purse there own form of happiness usually makes really wise ethical decisions, which improves society. I agree with mill’s theory because happiness always produces good things, which would very beneficial to the
“Utility” or 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. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure." (Mill 7)
The foundation of Utility is based on John Stuart Mill's notion that one must strive to act in such a way to produce the greatest good of the greatest number. Utility itself relies on the responsibility of the individual to remain impartial in his endeavor to produce the greatest good, looking past such extrinsic influences that may render the individual to seek a biased sense of satisfaction. In order for Utility to function as Mill wanted it to, honest judgment and objectivity must be an essential part of one's drive for the acquisition of the greatest good.
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
Throughout the essay, Mills speaks highly of utilitarianism as a way to construct a happier more stable society. “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness” (Mill 137). The ideas of such political philosophers such as Mills and Bentham enticed the modern world at the time of their publication, including the people of the U.S. The concept of utilitarianism started shaping America many years ago, and it is important to realize its consequence in modern day
John Stuart Mill’s core arguments follow and contrast many theories established by Jeremy Bentham. Combining the idea of consequentialism, that consequences of actions are the sole factor in moral evaluation, and hedonism—which states that pleasure is the sole factor in considering the value of overall intrinsic good—AU argues that an action is right if its consequences yield the greatest amount of happiness for the general well-being. More precisely, Mill considers that the concept of morality consists of two main utilities in the Greatest Happiness Principle: mans’ pursuit of the intrinsic good of pleasure and his will to prevent or relieve himself of pain in achieving his ends. All other desires are derived from mans attempt to fulfill these goals which ultimately dictate his actions. He acknowledges the seemingly acute simplicity of the Happiness Principle may on the surface deduce human happiness as no more sophisticated than a pigs. However, he contends this by pointing out that “swine” can only experience simple pleasures whereas the human conscious allows a “higher”, more sophisticated mechanism for experiencing mental pleasures. Diverging from traditional AU theory, Mills gives much emphasis on the quality of particular individuals’ pleasure and happiness above their duties to have motives that serve the “quantity” of more people. One argument presented is that if a particular group of people were exposed to both of two pleasures A and B, if the general c...
John Stuart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism is a moral consequentialist view that maintains actions are good if they lead to happiness and bad if they lead to suffering. The same rationale can be applied to obstruction—whatever prevents suffering is morally good, and whatever prevents happiness is morally bad. It should be noted Mill characterizes happiness as “pleasure and the absence of pain” (104). He also puts forth that intellectual pleasures—such as the satisfaction that comes with finishing a paper, or having a successful long-term friendship—are better than the animalistic pleasures taken in eating or sex. Proponents of this moral theory believe the most moral action is one that maximizes total happiness for the greatest amount of people.
When faced with the decision of whether or not to kill ones self, the deontological thinker would argue using the categorical imperative, saying that in order to act morally one must do as if their actions were to become universal law. If this is the case then making the decision to end ones own life is egregiously immoral because by doing so the person would be forcing all other rational beings to do the same. However a consequentialist would state that if the person is causing more pain and suffering to themselves and those around them alive than they would dead, then it would be beneficial to the world as whole for them to complete the action.
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.
Cahn, Steven M., and Peter J. Markie. "John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism; Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is." 2009. Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. 4th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. 330-41. Print.
John Stuart Mill claims that people often misinterpret utility as the test for right and wrong. This definition of utility restricts the term and denounces its meaning to being opposed to pleasure. Mill defines utility as units of happiness caused by an action without the unhappiness caused by an action. He calls this the Greatest Happiness Principle or the Principle of Utility. Mill’s principle states that actions are right when they tend to promote happiness and are wrong when they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is defined as pain and the lack of pleasure. Therefore, Mill claims, pleasure and happiness are the only things desirable and good. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism claims that act...
At the same time, some happiness is of more value than others when they are compared based on preference both on the basis of quality and quantity (Mill 52-53). It is for this reason that most, if not all human beings will prefer to remain discontent humans who can reason than very content and satisfied humans who cannot reason. Therefore, while what brings happiness is said to be the “morally right” thing, the effect is also considered. Mill uses the biblical “golden rule” to support this, do onto others on what you wish to have done on you. This, according to Mill, represents the ideal perfection of this moral theory (utilitarianism) because it compares the happiness of an individual with the society in
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...
This principle promotes a life of more pleasure than pain by choosing actions that produce more happiness. These are conscious actions made that follow a life of utility and act in accordance with the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” Though Mill’s critics would argue that Utilitarianism is not a reasonable foundation for morality by not fulfilling a life of happiness, creating selfish or expedient people, and reducing human experience to animals, I would have to disagree. This principle promotes happiness and pleasure for all, along with aiding individuals to be less selfish, and an even slate for people of all characters. I find the “Greatest Happiness Principle” to be a relevant and altruistic foundation of morality. There is an emphasis on lives containing more pleasure than pain under the rule that one person cannot put their own happiness above others. I think a type of morality such as this would be more successful than other forms of morality because it wants every human life to be a life filled with more pleasure than pain. I see this as an appropriate foundation because it promotes good over bad, which is ultimately the function of morality as a whole. As written by Raymond Plant, “Since the principle of the individual is to try to satisfy his desires…the principle of society should be to try to advance the satisfactions of those who belong to the society…”