Mill understands the Utilitarian principle to the full of it 's extent, he also understands why a person would disregard the theory, and there goes on to unravel the seemingly missing puzzle pieces to connect the theory completely, and correctly. His argurment reflects that of his own thoughts and opinions on the philosophy of the overall good of the population, concerning what is considered good by the measurement of happiness and pleasure. This in turn is where the second term for Utilitarianims comes from, as it is call the Greatest Happiness Principle. In his text, Mr. Mill states that this principle "holds that actiosn are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (96). Following this idea, he explains that happiness holds the absence of pain and the reverse of that, there holds the "privation of pleasure" (Mill 96).
In his book he states, “The Greatest Happiness Principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure” (Mill). Although this passage is pretty straightforward I will explain it in simpler terms in order to better understand it. Basically, what Mill is proposing is that according to a Utilitarian, actions are unjustifiably right if they produce happiness, or pleasure, and have an absence of pain. This is a key point into looking at the connection of utilitarianism and the liberty principle.
Utilitarianism is a moral belief that if a deed taken creates more good than bad for all than that deed should be taken. It is the calculation of the end result of whether your decision will lead to a good cause or not. If the deed brings happiness to all, than you are doing the right thing. John Stuart Mill, acknowledged for this theory, explains that utilitarianism theory is based on the following, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Mill explains happiness as pleasure lacking pain and that pleasure can differ in levels of quality and quantity.
In this paper I will argue that John Stuart Mill, the presenter of the most compelling theory of act-utilitarianism (AU), ultimately falls short in addressing the moral complexities which factor into man’s virtues and its effect on his motives for certain actions. John Stuart Mill’s core arguments follow and contrast many theories established by Jeremy Bentham. Combining the idea of consequentialism, that consequences of actions are the sole factor in moral evaluation, and hedonism—which states that pleasure is the sole factor in considering the value of overall intrinsic good—AU argues that an action is right if its consequences yield the greatest amount of happiness for the general well-being. More precisely, Mill considers that the concept of morality consists of two main utilities in the Greatest Happiness Principle: mans’ pursuit of the intrinsic good of pleasure and his will to prevent or relieve himself of pain in achieving his ends. All other desires are derived from mans attempt to fulfill these goals which ultimately dictate his actions.
"Do good to those who do good to you, and harm to those who harm you." This essay will be an exploration of the ethical viability of this statement through the evaluation of several ethical ideas and theories. Primarily, the statement suggests a necessity of the two separate points made within it: To do good to those who do good to you, but in doing so you must harm those who harm you. If you decide to act upon one half of this statement, then it seems not only logical but almost necessary and just to act upon the other half. Although momentarily the statements seem reasonable and sensible, in many respects the ambiguity and simplicity of the statement make it inapplicable to such a vast and varied society.
The fundamental objective of Hedonistic Utilitarianism would be to maximize happiness while minimizing pain (Sober 416). Supported by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, the theory of Utilitarianism has been criticized, reformed, and researched in order to view the different situations in which this theory may produce positive or negative outcomes. Although this moral theory, was established with positive intentions there have been ethical conflictions created by this theory. Such as the understanding that the hedonistic utilitarian moral theory maintains a very subjective motivation, destroys autonomy, and creates a false sense of self. One of those situational theories is the experience machine hypothesis.
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.” In his words he defines happiness as a state of pleasure without pain. Mill rebuttals that the pain caused to one can differ in quality and quantity, and that pleasures aren’t always the same, meaning one’s higher pleasure might be someone’s lower pleasure. Meaning he makes it clear that often times ones goals and ends results conclude to someone’s happiness. Mill also states the Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. An action could be morally wrong or morally right, depending on what action brings out the best outcome out of the... ... middle of paper ... ...s theory, often called hedonism.
Nagel is not interested in justifying absolute rights, but in articulating actions that are prohibited. His belief is that the world is an imperfect place; that fear and human cruelty will always present difficult moral situations, and that therefore, establishing criteria to deal with these less than ideal situations is essential. He also argues, unlike Gewirth, that one can be confronted with two choices, both of whose outcomes are bad, and for both of which one bears responsibility. Thus, he asks, when both respecting and violating an absolute right are wrong, what is the morally right thing to do?
Moreover, it has also shown that impartiality is a necessary condition for the ethical theories of utilitarianism and deontology. Such theories, however, cannot account for human intuition that suggests that it is acceptable to be partial in some circumstances. Finally, this essay has shown that the conflict between partiality and impartiality has not been resolved. As such, the request to be impartial with regard to morality does demand too much.
The ultimate desire of humanity and the focal point of human endeavor has been that elusive beacon of life that ﬂutters, ﬂickers, teases but pleases only a few. That beacon of happiness is sought and hunted by all as the ultimate goal. In this essay, I will outline the theory of utilitarianism along with a very compelling objection to it, called the ‘innocent bystander’ objection. I will begin my paper by defining the ethical theory of utilitarianism, preference and hedonistic utilitarianism, lay out the innocent bystander objection and provide support. "The maximum happiness for the greatest number", linked to the philosophy of utilitarianism is lopsided and illogical in its ideology when/ if it does not take into account morality and legality of the issues it condones.