Classical utilitarianism, the theory as described by 17th century philosopher John Stuart Mill, states that the only thing that matters is that are the happiness and unhappiness that is created as a consequence of an action; those actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences, everything else is irrelevant. The theory also states that each person’s happiness is equally important. According to Mill, the right actions are actions that produce the greatest possible balance of happiness over unhappiness. Although the theory of utilitarianism is widely accepted, it is not without some very critical and persuasive objections. I will examine and analyze the “doctrine of swine” and “lack of time” objections against utilitarianism along with Mill’s response to those statements.
Utilitarianism stresses the importance of the consequential happiness of an action. Nevertheless, the “doctrine of swine” objection to humanity states that since all that matters are pleasure and happiness, then our values are to be deemed unworthy of living. An example that illustrates this notion is the experience machine:
Let A be defined as: dictator issues edict forcing everyone onto machines that produces pleasurable experiences (the magnitude knobs set at maximum). U(A) = +1000
Let B be defined as: dictator does not issue edict. U(B) = +500
1. If utilitarianism is true, then the dictator is morally obliged to do A
2. It is not the case that the dictator is morally obliged to do A
3. Therefore, utilitarianism is false
Ordering everyone to be hooked up to the machine would certainly maximize utilities, but people’s lives would become no better than the life of a pig.
Premise one of the objection is true co...
... middle of paper ...
...carriage. He should not have to think twice about his course of action because his past experiences in life.
I also believe that the “lack of time” objection is false. According to utilitarianism, any action that fails to produce the greatest utility is morally wrong. Using the baby carriage example, if Jim were to stand and ponder on his alternatives, it would without a doubt produce less happiness as opposed to rescuing the baby. With that said, premise one becomes false because utilitarianism does not require us to think about our actions. Therefore, the lack of time objection is invalid and therefore unsound.
Even though the “doctrine of swine” and the “lack of time” argument all prove to be unsound, both objections exemplify the short-comings of utilitarianism. And although Mill attempts to reason with each argument, he is only successful in some cases.
A number of classic criticisms still surround utilitarianism today, the first one concerning the calculating or quantifying of happiness, or pleasure as termed by Mill. Opponents of utilitarianism argue that the differences between people as individuals and number of uncontrollable variables in a given moral situation do not allow us to calculate the amount of happiness or pleasure that could be attained by a particular course of action. Additionally, the ability to discern consequences and the time needed to discern these consequences make the utilitarian approach to happiness impractical. In rebuttal, Mill argues that the aforementioned problems are present in any ethical theory. Only roughly estimating the consequences in a situation is necessary, according to Mill. Also, he makes claim that we do calculate the consequences of the various outcomes possible in a particular moral dilemma, whether or not we are cognoscente of doing so. In fact, in some situations, no time is in fact needed in order to act in accordance with traditional moral principles (such as love thy neighbor as thyself, do not steal/lie/murder/cheat, etc.).
U T I L I T A R I A N I S M. (n.d.). Retrieved May 19, 2014, from http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Utilitarianism: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Utilitarianism%20notes.htm
... believe that if the intent of the agent's actions is to try to maximize the greater good or to create the greatest net utility possible, then it does not matter whether or not one is successful in carrying out his/her chosen act. Lastly, questions of morality and whether what one is doing in upholding the utilitarian concepts is "right" hold no ground. This is because utilitarianism clearly states that if the act in question maximizes the net utility, without causing harm or pain to all considered, the real moral question becomes, "Wouldn't you be morally wrong in not carrying out said act?"
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...
In this paper I will argue that Utilitarianism is a weak argument. According to John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism is defined as the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Happiness is pleasure and absence of pain (Mill, 114). At first glance the Utility perspective seems logical, however it often conflicts with justice and morality. I will begin by presenting the idea that good consequences do not always determine the right thing to do. Then I will provide the counterargument that utilitarians can bite the bullet. Next I will explain that Utilitarianism is too demanding for anyone to live by, and finally provide the counterarguments from the Utilitarianism perspective.
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.
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
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.
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...
Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, and they are not satisfied with physical pleasures, but they strive to achieve pleasure of the mind as well.
Nineteenth century British philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill sum up their theory of Utilitarianism, or the “principle of utility,” which is defined as, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Munson, 2012, p. 863). This theory’s main focus is to observe the consequences of an action(s), rather than the action itself. The utility, or usef...
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...
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.
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...
Philosopher, John Stuart Mill, was one of the most influential thinkers in the history of philosophical study, having had a significant impact in the area of Liberalism, among other counterparts. Apart from his interest in political philosophy, Mill was also an advocate of Utilitarianism which was an ethical theory originally brought about by late philosopher, Jeremy Bentham. Mill’s take on Utilitarian philosophy enhances, as well as contradicts some of Bentham’s earlier views. In this essay, I will explore Mill’s expansion on Bentham’s original take on the ethical theory of “Utilitarianism”, as the theory was significantly broadened by Mill’s contribution. I will be focusing on Mill’s theory of higher and lower pleasures, as well as touching