Given the principles and explanation that John Stuart Mill gives in Utilitarianism, and given the assumptions and arguments of Harris’s “Survival Lottery,” Mill would not accept the implementation of the “Survival Lottery”. In this paper I will describe Mill’s utilitarian principles, provide a detailed summary of the “Survival Lottery”, and finally I will prove why Mill would not accept Harris’s lottery.
First, I will discuss Mill’s principles and the requirements of his type of utilitarian ethics. Mill’s utilitarian principle can also be known as the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, which states that an action is good as long as it creates happiness. Mill sums up his principle by saying, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Mill argues that everyone desires his or her own happiness and thinks that happiness is the one main goal of all humans. However, just because one person desires his happiness doesn’t mean that this one person’s happiness will contribute to the overall society’s happiness. For example, if a person finds happiness in killing innocent people then this is obviously not contributing to the overall happiness of society. Sure, this may make the killer happy, but the families of the victim and society would be deeply angered and saddened from this occurrence. One of the main factors of Mill’s principle is that an action is good as long is it promotes more happiness than pain for society not just for one individual. It is the net happiness that Mill is concerned with rather than just the sole amount of happiness. As long as an action constitutes greater happiness than pain then Mill would deem this action good or moral...
... middle of paper ...
...vision of the lottery and utilitarianism become clearer. The “Survival Lottery” at times creates more happiness than pain, but there are several other times when the lottery can create much more pain than happiness. Mill thinks that all actions should always intend to create more happiness than pain, but in Harris’s lottery this is not always the case. Because of this Mill is the better utilitarian in the sense that he constantly wants the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people.
The previous paragraphs explain Mill’s principles of Utilitarianism, Harris’s explanation of the “Survival Lottery”, and finally why Mill would not adopt the lottery. The “Survival Lottery” gives an interesting perspective to a different type of living, however Mill would not be able to adapt this lottery because of his profound belief in the greatest happiness principle.
The villagers think of the lottery as a chore, rather than a slaughter. The lottery to them is nothing more than another errand, a task that they need to fulfill once a year. They dread the lottery not because one of them will be killed, but because it consumes their valuable time and energy. They seem to forget the importance of the life they take away every year, instead complaining about how long and drawn-out the process or taking away said life is. The director of the lottery even wants it over quickly. ?Well now,? Mr. Summers said soberly, ?guess we better get started, get this over with, so?s we can go back to work?? (Jackson, 239) This statement shows that the people no longer care about the life that will soon be ended, but that they have work to do, and the lottery is in their way of finishing it. Moreover, ...
The fundamental principles of “utilitarianism” is that the moral is worthy of an action that benefits the majority of the population and minimizes the negative consequence of the action, thus the “greatest happiness rationale” rules. This further implies that the welfare of the entire population is more important than the welfare of a sole individual. Shirley Jackson’s, “The Lottery”, and the United States military draft lottery demonstrate two different examples of lottery practices – the stoning in “the Lottery” and the raising of military manpower through the draft lottery. Both of these examples claim the major aim is allegedly for the welfare of the majority, however otherwise. Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” epitomizes communities, America, the world, and the orthodox society in its entirety through utilizing setting and most significantly various representations with her imaginative, enigmatic literary style. The Lottery was written in 1948 and this was approximately three years following the release of a World War II concentration camp Auschwitz. Shirley Jackson illustrates through the setting of the story, a humble, close-knit community, that despite the population’s ignorance to evil, it is still prevailing in the lottery. Lottery in the story pertains to the villagers’ yearly ritual of sacrificing and stoning a member of the community in exchange for a plentiful harvest. The façade of the lottery may appear beneficial for the majority of the villagers because, according to their belief, doing the lottery will provide them with an abundant harvest (Jackson). The sacrifice of one community member may appear justifiable because that one person’s sacrifice is for the good of the entire community. However, if we are going to...
Utilitarianism in its simplest form, claims that the morally right action is that which produces the greatest good, but questions not what the means are to achieve it. Jeremy Bentham and later John Stuart Mill are regarded as the founders of modern utilitarianism and believe that the greatest good is pleasure. John Stuart Mill (1806-73), states that utilitarianism is the moral theory that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” John Harris’s proposes a ‘survival lottery’ which would minimise the overall number of deaths in a society by arbitrarily sacrificing individuals so their organs can be used to ‘give life’ to others. Therefore more lives would be saved by the transplants than the amount taken by sacrifice. This is a rational proposal but one which faces much objection because of the moral issues raised, specifically the belief that it is wrong to kill and the importance of human life. This essay will argue that it is reasonable to suggest that a proposal that saves lives is desirable, and that killing one to save three or four is arguably the doctors duty or moral responsibility. Despite all of this, human beings will never accept this scheme either as a loss of liberty or because valuable resources could potentially be wasted on those undeserving of them.
There were some moral problems that Mill ran into with his principle. One of the first problems was that actions are right to promote happiness, but wrong as they sometimes tend to produce unhappiness. By moving a victim from a mangled car would be the noble thing to do but what if pulling him from the wreck meant killing him. He intended to produce a happy outcome, but in the end he created an unhappy situation. Utilitarianism declares that men can live just as well without happiness. Mill says yes, but men do not conduct their lives, always seeking happiness. Happiness does not always mean total bliss.
Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."(Mill) Utilitarian’s choices and decisions are based on the results of having the maximum number of happiness to the minimal number of pain. For instance, with this case study, Utilitarianism would be pro for the shooting of the intruder. The reasoning behind this is if the intruder were to open fire on the family, there would be several casualties. Whereas if you were to shoot the intruder there would only be one casualty. This would maximize the happiness with having more lives saved, rather than the pain with more lives lost. With saving more lives you are going with the majority which is the amount of people being saved for the one life that is loss. Also Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. Meaning in this example that watching your family die would be extremely painful for yourself and the loved ones going through the tragedy. But saving your family would create happiness or “pleasure” because they are now safe and not in any type of danger. The pleasure of saving your family greatly outweighs the pain that would come from watching your family die. Having to mourn all the
...d in the discussion of promise keeping and beneficence, identifiable logical or practical contradictions arise when attempting to universalize morally impermissible maxims (according to the CI). Mill argues that the CI only shows “that the consequences of [the maxims] universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.” This is erroneous for there is no such “choice” available. The logical and practical contradictions that Mill fails to recognize produce an outcome (rejection of the maxim) necessitated by rationality and a free will. It is not that the consequences are unpleasant, but that their production is irrational.
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.
In Wide Sargasso Sea, Jean Rhys explored the origins of Bertha Antoinetta Rochester, the madwoman in the attic from Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre. Reimagined by Rhys as Antoinette Cosway Mason, Sargasso Sea documents Antoinette’s troubled adolescence and her eventual descent into apparent insanity. Rhys’ choice to investigate the life of a character who was already doomed to a tragic end focuses the informed reader on the development of Antoinette’s madness, and a potential explanation for her inevitable fate. In this essay, I will investigate one key aspect of Antoinette’s fragile state, the complex ethnic identity she forms during her adolescence, particularly in regards to her childhood friendship with Tia, and how that confused identity relates to her tragic end. A victim of many circumstances beyond her control, Antoinette’s identification with both Black and White culture fractures her sense of self, alienates her from both, and is an important factor to how she is degraded by her husband. Between the upheaval of post-emancipation Jamaica and her own ever-changing social position, Antoinette finds herself, “caught between two cultures… but never able to identify fully with either.” (Kadhim 2011) This incomplete sense of self is incompatible with the world she lived in, and, in combination with her inability to control her own destiny, it informs her disastrous marriage and the eventual abuse and imprisonment she suffers from her husband, leading to madness, and her tragic fate.
This experiment, proposed by Harris, encouraged people to imagine a world where organ donation was expected to save more lives than it would kill. Under these circumstances, a person is obligated to give up his or her life to save one or more lives in need of a donation when they are drawn from the lottery. Hence, all lives are considered equal and two lives saved are of more value than the one life that dies. Because Utilitarianism is the concept that the right thing to do is the action that maximizes total benefit and reduces suffering, the “Survival Lottery” is morally permissible according to Utilitarianism.
“A pretty summer day, every member of a rural village attends a yearly drawing in which everyone's name is entered. Because of its belief in an ancient superstition in which human sacrifice ensures good crops, the community stones the "winner" of the lottery, Tess Hutchinson.” “The Lottery” by Shirley Johnson is a short story used to induce the ineffectiveness of following traditions blindly and demonstrates a subjective loss of a human being in order to ensure the survival of others. Having thought of “The Lottery” one can relate it to an ethical theory called “Utilitarianism Theory”. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory determined on maximizing the inclusive good. This theory confronts our well being by choosing the action that maximizes utility and the one that brings happiness to the majority of people while exploiting minorities. Utilitarianism is a normative theory that judges the action by how much of pleasure or pain it brings. However, some individuals would refuse to abide by the utilitarianism’s principles by criticizing the theory on several levels ranging from violating ones right, impartial decision makers, immeasurability, ignore justice, tyranny of the majority.
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...
In this essay I will explain why J.S.Mill’s branch of Utilitarianism, often referred to as Rule Utilitarianism, supports Harris’ idea of a survival lottery. However I will then reject this proposal of Utilitarianism because it devalues the sanctity of human life by treating people as a “means to an end” which I believe to be
The second is how most other people would probably see it, even those who would consider themselves a utilitarian. Utilitarianism views are meant to make as many people as possible happy. The only way to make the most amounts of people happy would be to kill innocent, healthy A in order to save the dying Y and Z. According to Harris, someone who considers themselves a utilitarian should agree with the survival lottery because it would save the maximum amount of lives. The lottery chooses a healthy person to kill, but in return saves two other lives. In reality, most people, even those who would say that they believe in utilitarianism, would not agree with the lottery system. It would bring about many questions as to who would be considered healthy enough for the lottery, who would decide whether or not an unhealthy organ was the person’s fault, and what age would be considered too
Mill’s critics would likely say that Utilitarianism as a whole can function to create selfish people because all are striving towards a life of more pleasure than pain, but Mill shuts this down with the idea of happiness being impartial. Basically, a person must choose an action that yields the most happiness or pleasure, whether that pleasure is for them or not. Mill would recognize that, “Among the qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends, and it is in this that people acquire the sense that they have moral intuitions superior to mere self-interest” (Wilson). By this, it is meant that although people are supposed to take action that will produce the greatest pleasure, the do not do so in a purely selfish manner. Mill goes on to argue that the happiness of individuals is interconnected; therefore one cannot be selfish in such a way. Along with the criticism of Utilitarianism and the principle of utility being selfish, many argue that such a doctrine promotes expediency in order to benefit the person conducting the action alone. I would disagree with these criticisms, and find Mill’s argument valid. His argument counters