In Mill’s Utilitarianism, he described what he defines what is happiness and unhappiness by using the greatest happiness principle. The greatest happiness principle is where the action is justified if it promotes happiness and is wrong when they promote the opposite of happiness. Happiness occurs when there are elements of intending pleasure and having an absence of pain. Since the elements of happiness are things that are ends in themselves, and the only thing is good. Happiness having no higher means of life makes other occurrences or experiences wanted only to a certain extent because it produces pleasure. The actions are considered good if they produce a great amount of happiness, and bad when they diminish it. Diminishing the amount of happiness is considered unhappiness, which is when pain and privation of pleasure is.
The principle of utility recognizes that there are different kinds of pleasure; some being more desirable and having higher value than others. Quality and quantity estimation is considered when it comes to measure pleasure. When deciding out of two pleasures, if ...
For more than two thousand years, the human race has struggled to effectively establish the basis of morality. Society has made little progress distinguishing between morally right and wrong. Even the most intellectual minds fail to distinguish the underlying principles of morality. A consensus on morality is far from being reached. The struggle to create a basis has created a vigorous warfare, bursting with disagreement and disputation. Despite the lack of understanding, John Stuart Mill confidently believes that truths can still have meaning even if society struggles to understand its principles. Mill does an outstanding job at depicting morality and for that the entire essay is a masterpiece. His claims throughout the essay could not be any closer to the truth.
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
To kill or let live will explore the utilitarian views of John Stuart Mill, as well as the deontological views of Immanuel Kant on the thought experiment derived from British Philosopher Philippa Foot. Foot had great influence in the advancement of the naturalistic point of view of moral philosophy. The exploration of Philippa Foot’s Rescue I and Rescue II scenarios will provide the different views on moral philosophy through the eyes of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant.
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
people’s overall happiness and this is what God desires, so in fact this theory includes God
The utilitarian ethics theory in a nutshell basically states that “the good is the well-being of all, impartially considered (Riley 68).” What is emphasized in utilitarian theory is that the greatest good be produced for the greatest number of people. This brings up the question of what “good” actually is. Many utilitarian theorists believe there are two kinds of good, intrinsic and instrumental. Intrinsic good is good considered just by itself while all other things are instruments for gaining the intrinsic goods (Schinzinger 55). Mill believes that the only intrinsic good is happiness and thus the emphasis can be rewritten as the greatest happiness produced for the greatest number of people. In other words, happiness is basically the only thing desirable as an end in itself. However, once again we ask the question of what happiness really is. When explaining his utilitarian theory, Mill separates happiness into two types, the higher and the lower (Mill Ch.2). Mill defines the higher happiness as being that of humans including such qualities as justice, creativity, morality and nobility. On the other hand, the lower happiness is that which is associated with animals and is purely pleasure based. Using these two types of happiness, Riley c...
In defining utilitarianism, J.S. Mill counters the popular belief that this theory only deals with the pleasure yielded by actions of individuals by stating that, "the theory of utility... [is] not something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure... together with exemption from pain" (596). He goes on to argue that the foundation of this principle lies in the fact that an individual's action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to "produce the reverse of happiness" (597). For example, an enemy forcibly entered your village with the intent on killing every woman and child in town if no one turned over the sniper that took some of their men out. If you tell them who the sniper is, no harm will be done to the women and children, but since the sniper is long gone, you decide to tell the enemy that the town bum is the sniper. Since you judge his life to be of least worth in all of the village in terms of future goodness, would it be right to send him to his death? The answer is yes, this act would be the right act as it would promote the happiness in the rest of the village because his life isn't worth the hundreds of lives of women and children (Paraphrased from Joyce, ...
Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as follows:According to the Greatest Happiness Principle … The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments.Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas may be identified: (1) The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A "good" man is one who considers the other man's pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own.
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.
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...
Another problem is that some pleasures are more alluring than others. Pleasure does not deal with just quantity, quality is also important. The old saying, “You ...
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
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…”
When talking about pleasure there needs to be a distinction between the quality and the quantity. While having many different kinds of pleasures can be considered a good thing, one is more likely to favor quality over quantity. With this distinction in mind, one is more able to quantify their pleasures as higher or lesser pleasures by ascertaining the quality of them. This facilitates the ability to achieve the fundamental moral value that is happiness. In his book Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill offers a defining of utility as pleasure or the absence of pain in addition to the Utility Principle, where “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 7). Through this principle, Mill emphasizes that it is not enough to show that happiness is an end in itself. Mill’s hedonistic view is one in support of the claim that every human action is motivated by or ought to be motivated by the pursuit of pleasure.