Morality as a whole tries to create a distinction between right and wrong, good and bad. Making decisions should arguably always be aimed towards good. Under the philosophical doctrine of Utilitarianism, philosophers like Bentham and Mill recognize that human kind should make their lives useful and good through bringing about happiness or pleasure. The idea of the “Greatest Happiness Principle was introduced by Bentham, who was a Utilitarian predecessor to Mill. According to Mill, human lives should abide by the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” This principle states that actions are good as they tend to promote happiness; and bad as they promote the reverse of happiness, therefore humans should make a conscious choice of action that will lead
In John Stuart Mill’s work Utilitarianism, Mill is trying to provide proof for his moral theory utilitarianism and disprove all the objections against it. 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" (Ch. II, page 7). He calls this the “greatest happiness principle. Mill says, “No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except the fact that each person desires his own happiness, so far as he thinks it is attainable.
Deontology focuses on respecting the autonomy and humanity of others, basically preaching equal opportunity. Utilitarianism does not specify any means by which to obtain happiness—happiness is its only mandate. While happiness sounds like a great end goal, it is a rather impractical one and the lack of consideration of motivations and means of utility-increasing actions has some serious negative consequences. I prefer Deontology over Utilitarianism for its focus on individual’s rights, opportunity, and personal autonomy. Utilitarianism’s advocacy of happiness by any means is what concerns me about the theory.
It is to make sure that the person is not in any sort of physical or mental pain. Having all three aspects of his happiness would keep a person from going into a depressed state and they would help satisfy the basic needs of a person so he or she would live life pain free. On the other hand, Nozick believes that there is more to happiness than what Epicurus’s version is. Nozick said “we also can show that more matters than pleasure or happiness by considering a life that has these but otherwise empty, a life of mindless pleasures or bovine contentment or frivolous amusements only, a happy life but a superficial one” (102). Nozick is talking about how it is better for people to have more to life than just a happy but unaware life.
In this essay I will argue that ethics of happiness are a set of acceptable principles that guide the way individuals should act in a given situation. Utilitarian Ethics is morally right acts that bring the most happiness to individuals. For instance, utilitarian ethics main focus is happiness and what decision will produce the maximum amount of happiness for everyone involved. Kant would say that the actions of somebody who acts justly because of the desire of happiness or pleasure have no moral worth. In fact, even if that person acts justly because of the desire for happiness of others, Kant would say that a person’s actions have no moral worth.
The moral philosophy of Utilitarianism includes a calculation of happiness, in which actions are considered to be good if they produce happiness and evil if they produce pain. Utilitarianism also considers at what extent happiness can be created not just for an individual, but also others whom may be affected. By following a Utilitarian moral philosophy, a person can assure the best possible situation for the most amounts of people affected by every action they make. Utilitarianism is the centered on happiness, as a concept, and tries to promote the idea. The vision here is that if all people seek happiness, it will result in the happiness for all humans and animals.
As stated, Mill believes that an action is right if it promotes happiness and an action is wrong if it promotes pain. Second, the principle of utility does not focus on an individual’s happiness but it focuses on the overall happiness. As stated, “first laws of social arrangement should place the happiness or the interest of every individual as nearly as possible in harmony with the interest of the whole” (Utilitarianism, 17). The principle takes into consideration the happiness of others and does not allow you to only think of yourself, this incorporates the idea of equal treatment to the principle. Another element to the utility principle is consequentialism, which is defined, as what makes an... ... middle of paper ... ...le of utility, helping the family would promote the most happiness because it’s a greater number compared to only one person.
In philosophy, utilitarianism argues that a pleasure state of being is preferred over a painful state of being. Utilitarianism also notes that all human utility must be taken into account when making moral judgments. Using this moral theory allows us to think that all moral rules and actions should be determined by their worth and future outcome. Though the idea of “the greatest good for the greatest number” may seem moral and correct, the flaw in utilitarianism is that it allows us to use immoral judgments and actions to reach the desired outcome. This becomes a problem for “moral” decision making because we can use immoral actions to get a future outcome that is not necessarily promised.
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:
These arguments give us the perception that Utilitarianism is different from other moral aspects. Other moral aspects give one the freedom to engage in an action that they believe will result into the best results. John Mill, another philosopher later adjusted Bentham’s theory. Mill was a follower of Bentham’s work although he disagreed on a number of principles Bentham had stood for during his... ... middle of paper ... ...trinsic aspects such as love or freedom. It focuses only on happiness and pleasure.