Is Utilitarianism Too High for Humanity

In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.

In the making of my own argument on the elements that justify a right or wrong action, I will reference two of the most influential philosophers, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. In order to make this paper easy to follow, I intend to focus on one of the arguments formed by each of these men. I will evaluate how both of Kant and Mill’s principles fits into the morals of right and wrong. Kant gives us a categorical imperative that urges one to Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Kant), and Mill states that actions are right as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill). Lastly, I will briefly formulate my own position on the components of a morally right action. I find Mill’s view of utilitarianism somewhat conflictive with the idea of morality. Based on the notion that utilitarianism calls “right” the actions that promote greatest happiness, for one self and for the whole, it can be said that utilitarianism allows murder (for whatever reasons it may be) and therefore this view is incompatible with our assessment morally acts.

Mill’s belief of Utilitarianism states that in a situation, the correct moral action would be the action that causes the greatest sum total of pleasure and least amount of pain for all sentient beings involved. Mill would rank the morality of actions based on their consequences. Mill holds this position because he believes that happiness is the greatest human good and benevolence is a person’s central moral virtue (Mortensen lecture, March 22).

Utilitarianism is a concept formatted in a book by John Stuart Mill that welcomes the idea of utility in everyday life, while focusing on how to achieve complete happiness in the lives of humans. Nature automatically guides the living creatures of this toward always pursuing pleasure and to avoid pain, and this reigns true in lives of humans as people strive for greatness and in animals as survival is a pleasure for them. It is clear that in life, some pleasures are not worth the action and some pains should be

I have considered Mill’s ethical theory of Utilitarianism, specifically Rule Utilitarianism. After considering the objections of Negative Responsibility and conflicting rules, I have explained that it is plausible that an individual has a moral responsibility to only really focus on their own happiness and the happiness of those around them. I have also explained that it is fairly trivial to solve the issue of conflicting rules by pondering modifications of rules or even new ones. I’ve explained Mill’s response to the “no time” objection, given his views on lying. I’ve given the definitions of happiness, unhappiness, qualities of pleasure and the role of competent judges in that, and the Greatest Happiness Principle.

The purpose of this paper is to explain how Utilitarianism supports Mill’s Liberty Principle. The Liberty Principle, or harm principle, simply states that the only way someone can stop another person from doing what they want, against their will, is if it will cause harm to others. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, is basically stating that the goal of an action or event is to make the most people the happiest. In reference to the greatest happiness principle, the opposite of happiness is not necessarily sadness but is simply referred to as the “opposite of happy;” and this is important to keep in mind when listening to the argument that I will present later on in the paper. I find that the following considerations:

The basic philosophy of Utilitarianism, that Mill provides, is the idea of the ‘greatest good for the greatest amount’. It ...

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.).

Even with this argument as presented by Mill, there are still questions that remain unanswered, e.g., What is it that people desire, do they desire to be happy or do “they desire what they think will bring them happiness” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 61)? The criticisms presented thus far, on the “principle of utility as a correct moral principle” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 60), leaves me to hold a moral judgment and answer to the question, “Utilitarianism: A Workable Moral Theory?” And as cited by Driver (2014)

In this essay I consider Mills reply to the objection that Utilitarianism is too high for humanity. I argue that Mills reply succeed because most of the time what humans tend to do confounds the rule of action with motive. It is in human nature. However motive has a lot to do with the morality of action and with the agent.