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.
The principle of Utility The principle of Utility is considered as the “greatest happiness principle”. Mill defines this principle as actions are right if they tend to promote the most happiness and wrong if they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Utilitarianism, 7). There have been many arguments against the principle of utility. People who are against this principle argue that there is no time to calculate what generates the most happiness in a given situation. Mills responds to this objection by explaining how secondary moral reasoning and the fundamental principle of morality are taken into account when deciding what promotes the most overall happiness.
Mill’s critics would likely say that Utilitarianism as a whole can function to create selfish people because all are striving towards a life of more pleasure than pain, but Mill shuts this down with the idea of happiness being impartial. Basically, a person must choose an action that yields the most happiness or pleasure, whether that pleasure is for them or not. Mill would recognize that, “Among the qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends, and it is in this that people acquire the sense that they have moral intuitions superior to mere self-interest” (Wilson). By this, it is meant that although people are supposed to take action that will produce the greatest pleasure, the do not do so in a purely selfish manner. Mill goes on to argue that the happiness of individuals is interconnected; therefore one cannot be selfish in such a way.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that says any action is morally right if the consequence is positive or for the better. The difficulty with utilitarianism is that no one knows all future consequences of your actions. Bentham’s goal was to make happiness the ultimate goal. Even though I’m against utilitarianism; there are still pros to this theory. This theory is straightforward and based on the single principle of minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure and happiness, and the theory does work to an extent.
The basic premise is the idea that the greatest good comes from creating happiness for the greatest number of people. Pleasure and freedom of pain are the only things desirable as ends. In Utilitarianism it is the greatest happiness of everyone involved which is right, so one must be impartial to one's own happiness. Utilitarianism takes the view that if needed, you should sacrifice your own happiness for greater pleasure of others. For Utilitarianism bases action on pleasure and pain.
The principal of utility is to maximize the happiness in ones self by using benefits misusing the harms. It acts as to produce advantage, pleasure, good or happiness and the greatest net balance of benefits over harms for all affected impartially. In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill was trying to show that actions and institutions should increase the overall amount of happiness in the world, and stressed the importance of utilitarianism as the first principle in ethics. Happiness should be judged, not only by pleasure, but by pain as well, Mill believes that a person should always seek to gain pleasure and reject pain.
Deontology promotes a fair opportunity at happiness and self-advocacy, whereas Utilitarianism’s objective is the promotion of happiness. While happiness is indeed a great thing, I worry that by only looking at the result of an action Utilitarian actions could far too easily infringe upon one’s right to self-determination. I prefer Deontology for this reason and for its objective of respecting human autonomy and mandate to treat humanity always as an end and not as a simple means.
This belief is folly because as humans, we are at times forced with the difficult decision to subject ourselves to emotional pain in order to produce justice. One of the main a... ... middle of paper ... ...pg 387). If we do not punish someone by the power of the law, they will be persecuted by the opinion of their fellow peers, if both the court and their society leave them unpunished, then they are left to consequences of their own conscience. Again, it is inferred that we do not punish because of retribution or empathy but because it is our moral obligation and our sense of duty to justice to build a better society. Utilitarianism defends the argument that the ends justify the means and that actions are correct if the benefit the majority of the population.
First, Mill says that all ethical decisions should be based on pleasure. This statement becomes questionable when Mill... ... middle of paper ... ...o are polar opposites. This statement holds true no matter what one believes. To find happiness, the opposing sides must find a suitable balance. This does not mean that pain is always a daily part of life, but that it can not and should not be avoided.
The agreement is made between those who were prosperous and unprosperous because of the effects of injustice and the people that encounter both. Glaucon describes that justice is the favorable midway between the two serious forms of injustice. He ends his first argument by saying that individuals support justice because they have to, and not voluntarily. Glaucon’s second part of his argument, he says that no one does the right thing by choice, we do the right... ... middle of paper ... ...ll not come back to haunt them. Glaucon’s three examples prefer injustice, and he gives examples of the acceptance of injustice over justice.