John 's Utilitarianism, Utility, And The Great Happiness Principle

1120 Words5 Pages
According to John’s Utilitarianism, Utility, or the Great Happiness Principle, are actions to promote happiness, which are our pleasures morally or physically. Life has no higher end than pleasure and pleasures should be the original and eventual goals for us to live a life (Utilitarianism). And one important point in John’s understanding to help answer the question about whether to prohibit the eating of animals is that, in his words, the happiness which forms the utilitarian standards of what is right in conduct is not the agent’s own happiness, but that of all concerned. As the two objects involve in the argument, John thinks Utilitarian must be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator. In such case, it’s right to say that a utilitarian would endorse an absolute prohibition against eating animals. First of all, there are several facts should be clarified. We can undergo the change from eating animal to not do so, as what John says, voluntarily choose the lower description of pleasure in preference to the higher. In other words, if the higher level of pleasures are available, people would not enjoy the highest happiness and reach the most utility. So what about the moral issue that involve in this argument? According to John’s ideas, for whatever we adopt as the fundamental principles of morality, we do require a secondary principles to help support and make us obey the first morality principles. But as John questions in the Utilitarianism, the complicated nature of human affairs is the reason that cause us to face the moral issues, and there exists no moral system if there exists no conflicting obligations. To consider this question in the Utilitarian’s way of thinking, we should consider the grea... ... middle of paper ... ...valent. To support this, Singer quotes the English philosopher Henry Sidzhvik: "The benefit of each individual has no greater value, from the point of view of the Universe, than the benefit of any other being"(Regan), what also reflects the Bentham 's position: "One man is worth just the same as another man" (Perry, Bratman, Fischer). Needs, Singer claims, are based on the ability to suffer from anguish. And while a being has such ability he will have needs as well. And such needs have to be considered from a position of their equivalence. Therefore the key question is what beings are capable to suffer from anguish. Thus, back to the original question, in a utilitarian’s point of view, to maximize the happiness of all the creatures, he/she would adores an absolute prohibition against eating animals, and it’s right for utilitarian to fulfill the maximum utility creed.
Open Document