More handpicked essays just for you.
John stuart mill's objections on utilitarianism
John stuart mill's objections on utilitarianism
John stuart mill's objections on utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Essay #1:
In “The Categorical Imperative,” Kant makes arguments concerning moral value of an action (maxim/ rule of conduct), and urges that morality is the inborn quality, which determines actions. His argument is that motivation should determine action, without worrying for the results. His views suggest that if the motivation is moral, the actions would be morally correct, and that the results would be acceptable, regardless of others’ views and acceptance for such actions. Kant’s arguments, in addition to being complex and incoherent, sound very subjective and impractical.
John Stuart Mill’s arguments link happiness with morality. The author argues that individuals’ actions, moral or otherwise, aim to make them happy. If an action makes one happy, that action is moral, and such an argument may not be entirely true.
In "The Nature of Virtue," Aristotle talks about two types of virtues,
…show more content…
As I see it, ethical behaviors, which essentially mean, to my reading, acting manners that are acceptable to others and are learning process in that given, certain context. It also is true that certain inborn and qualities may exist. For example, serving water to a thirsty individual, with or without learning process, may be an inborn/natural quality, and that such actions would not consider whether the thirsty individual would say thank you or some other similar words after drinking water. Serving water, which may relate to Held’s caring argument, may not be an action purely to be happy either, as suggested by Mill. Such an action, even if that sounds like caring, could be just a spontaneous duty, untaught and irrelevant to the arguments of caring, learned ethics and happiness, and not reward intended. Regardless, such a spontaneous action, even if very valuable, is usually rare; whereas, in today’s context, one needs to be ethical in many disciplines each day and among all. For that reason, Aristotle’s views are more
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
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.
Moral decision-making constitutes an important part of the everyday human life. In this paper, I will examine and contrast Utilitarianism and Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative, both, which provide people with a moral structure, and how the issue of etiquettes relates to Kantian Theory. It is important to note that both the theories have their advantages and drawbacks, thus to enable one to make a methodical decision, it is important to understand the basic principles of each. However, in this paper there will be a main focus on Kantian Categorical argument and then discussing the issue of etiquettes.
Immanuel Kant, like his predecessors John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, believed morality was based on standards of rationality. His influential work, The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, argues for the existence of a “foundational principle of a metaphysics of morals”. 1 Such a principle, he asserts, must account for three propositions of morality: only actions done from duty have genuine moral worth, moral value arises from the maxim its action involves, not from the purpose that is to be achieved through it, and that a duty is an obligation to act in a specific manner out of respect for the law.2 Kant names this foundational principle the categorical imperative.
John Stuart Mill, who is an English philosopher, explains another way of achieving happiness based off of his personal experience. After suffering from a d...
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...
The reason why I agree with John Stuart Mill’s argument of “The Pursuit of Unhappiness” is because if you search for happiness you will never find it. People who are not happy is because they are too busy looking for “happiness.” However, if you stop searching for it you will be happy. The reason why you will be happy is because you will not be busy looking for it and you will realize that you did not have to search for happiness because it is right there you just did not notice it.
Mill begins his essay on Utilitarianism by explaining his Greatest Happiness Principle, stating actions are right in that they promote happiness and actions are wrong if they take happiness away (Mill, “What Utilitarianism Is,” para 2). Following from this idea, happiness is pleasure, and unhappiness is pain and the privation of pleasure (Mill, “What Utilitarianism Is,” para 2). In defending the equivalence between happiness and pleasure from his critics, Mill makes the claim that there is “the superiority of mental over bodily pleasures chiefly in the greater permanency, safety, uncostliness, etc., of the former” (Mill, “What Utilitarianism Is,” para 4). He claims that pleasures can differ both in quality and qua...
Kant gives example situations to demonstrate the application of the categorical imperative. One illustration defines a man who sees somebody in need but failures to help. Kant says this situation would not be moral. Not on the grounds of a wrong committed against the other person, but because this cannot be applied universally. Kant says that sooner or later we will all help, and if the maxim were applied categorically, we would be deprived of the help we required. Since actions are only seen as wrong if they cannot be applied categorically and not because they are wrong, result in harm to somebody, or violate their rights. This could lead to a society that believes helping anyone in a time of need would be considered damaging to the continuing
I believe both Kant and Aristotle are relevant to our discussion today. Kant’s categorical imperative, which is considered a deontological (non-consequentialist) view to this discussion. Kant’s categorical imperative is based on the following three principles: a moral command we issue to ourselves; focuses on judging our own action based on reason; and requires us to be aware of ourselves and others. At the foundation of Kant’s theory is an awareness of the need for: duty, respect and universality. Where, Aristotle through his virtue ethics believed in an unmoved mover, as well as, the fact that all humans are social and political animals. Aristotle also claimed that virtue is human excellence; and that happiness and the fulfillment of
In Section One and Section Two of his work. Kant explores his position on his fundamental principle of morality, or his “categorical imperative”, or his idea that all actions are moral and “good” if they are performed as a duty. Such an idea is exemplified when he says, “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant 14). The philosopher uses examples such as suicide and helping others in distress to apply his principal to possible real life situation. Kant is successful in regards to both issues. As a result, it means that categorical imperative can plausibly be understood as the fundamental principle of all morality. Kant’s reasoning for his categorical imperative is written in a way that makes the theory out to be very plausible.
Kant's Categorical Imperative Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted, regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant, who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “ The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willingness, i.e., it is good of itself”.
He believed that personal morality accomplished through human nature, regular activity, and happiness. Aristotle believed that individuals must have intellectual and moral virtues in sync to live sufficiently in communities. Aristotle persuade that “intellectual virtues can be taught, moral virtues must be acquired through habit and require a particular sort of community if they are to be realized” (Scalet & Arthur, 2014, p. 75). Therefore, he demanded that in order “to keep a certain character in our activities, since our moral states depend on the differences in our activities” (Scalet & Arthur, 2014, p. 79).
Immanuel Kant was a philosopher who made great contributions with his work on the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant’s interest with metaphysics left him in the company of Aristotle, who had the original work on metaphysics. Kant’s goal in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals was to find and make the supreme principal of morality. Kant covers several concepts in his work on metaphysics, some of the key concepts in his work are good will, moral worth, and imperatives. When it comes to good will Kant believes that “Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will” 1. In the next key concept, moral worth, Kant believes that actions are only morally right depending on their motives, “an action done not from inclination but from duty” 2 is morally right according to Kant. Kant’s imperatives are broken down into two types, those being hypothetical and categorical. A hypothetical imperative is an “action that is good to some purpose, possible or actual” 3. A categorical imperative “directly commands a certain conduct without making its condition some purpose to be reached by it” 4. From these concepts you can tell that Kant is a perfect world philosopher who thinks that all humans are rational beings, who have preeminent good in them, and should always strive to be their best selves.
I agree with Mill’s hedonistic view of happiness. Mill believes that pleasure is a fundamental value because it promotes happiness, and diminishes the feelings of pain and unhappiness. The objections to hedonism are invalid because it is always better to be intelligent and consciously aware of everything in one's life, as opposed to being content and selfish, mimicking the lifestyle of a pig whose pleasures have all been satisfied.