Utilitarianism or God, do we have to choose?
During many years that question is being formulated and many scholars had a very difficult time to decide if it was possible to follow God’s will and the principle of utility maximization. The principle of utility maximization was a theory created by John Stuart Mill and presented in his book Utilitarianism (1863). Societies throughout the years have argued that those theories are hard to combine, since Utilitarianism seeks for self-development and God’s teachings seek for community growth. This paper will start with a context on actuality of society, then it will try to clarify what is the Bible view of Utilitarianism by explaining the principle of Utilitarianism, what society has to change to avoid to forget God’s principles and only base their behavior on Mill’s theory, how society should accept both theories and combine them into one in order to create a better society.
An important part of this discussion is based on understanding what is happening with society nowadays. Societies all around the world are becoming more and more individualists, what is causing problems that can affect the whole world, problems such as terrorists attacks, war or even in a lower but maybe more important scale hunger. This is basically happening because every single member of every society is only looking after themselves instead of the group, they are only trying to progress individually, but most of these individuals forget that to really achieve the top you need help, and that help comes from other individuals. The following part of the paper will try to clarify the biblical view of Mill’s theory, the Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism has always been seen as an opposite theory from God’s teachings. That is not absolutely correct. Jesus gave us the major example of understanding Mill’s principle by dying on the cross. Of course it is simple to say that Jesus died for every human being and that is a proof of community spirit instead of individualism, however Jesus showed that He was following actually not His will but God’s will, what is showed on the passage before Jesus is captured by the roman soldiers: “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matthew 26:39). What Jesus was showing is that every single human has the principle of utilitarianism inside themselve...
... middle of paper ...
...s Consulted
• Rose, John T., “Utility Versus Self-Sacrificing Love” Christian Scholar’s Review Fall 2004
• Leightner, Jonathan, “‘Not my Will…’:Further Thoughts on Utility Versus Self-Sacrificing Love” Christian Scholar’s Review Fall 2004
• NRSV Bible
• “FAO unveils global anti-hunger program” http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2002/5500-en.html
• Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism, Hackett Publishing Company Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, 1979, Original Publication, 1861
• Harcourt, Edward, “Mill’s ‘Sanctions’, Internalization and the Self” European Journal of Philosophy; Oct98, Vol. 6 Issue 3, p318, 17p
• Kant Immanuel, Grounding For The Metaphysics Of Morals, Third Edition, Hackett Publishing Company Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, 1993, Original Publication, 1785
• Smart, and Bernard Williams. Utilitarianism: For and Against. Trowbridge: Redwood Burn, 1973
• Lewis, C.S., “Mere Christianity” Harper Collins Edition 2001
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.
Richard Lebow’s analyzed Mill’s arguments sustaining that it can be identified two contrary visions; one arguing for the market on its own and the other for the necessity of a state’s intervention. This classification of two clearly opposed views is also raised by Gide and Rist in the following statement “During the first half of his life, Mill was an individualist who was deeply committed to utilitarianism. During the second half, he was a socialist who remained a champion of individual liberty” (1947, page
From top to bottom, John Stuart Mill put forth an incredible essay depicting the various unknown complexities of morality. He has a remarkable understanding and appreciation of utilitarianism and throughout the essay the audience can grasp a clearer understanding of morality. Morality, itself, may never be totally defined, but despite the struggle and lack of definition it still has meaning. Moral instinct comes differently to everyone making it incredibly difficult to discover a basis of morality. Society may never effectively establish the basis, but Mill’s essay provides people with a good idea.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans. H. J. Paton. 1964. Reprint. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2009. Print.
...d in the discussion of promise keeping and beneficence, identifiable logical or practical contradictions arise when attempting to universalize morally impermissible maxims (according to the CI). Mill argues that the CI only shows “that the consequences of [the maxims] universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.” This is erroneous for there is no such “choice” available. The logical and practical contradictions that Mill fails to recognize produce an outcome (rejection of the maxim) necessitated by rationality and a free will. It is not that the consequences are unpleasant, but that their production is irrational.
John Stuart Mill believes in a utilitarian society where people are seen as “things.” Moreover, in utilitarianism the focus of the goal is “forward-looking”, in looking at the consequences but not the ini...
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
Mill, John S. The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill. New York, New York: Modern Library, 2002. Print.
Mill takes on the claim that utilitarianism is fit for a swine. “…life has no higher end than pleasure - no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit... as a doctrine worthy only of swine... (however) Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites” (Mill, 1863, Ch. 2, p331). This objection identifies the flaws in Mill’s moral theory. It mentions that humans have higher capacities and more special moral values than just pleasure that we must recognize and take into account that utilitari...
Nevertheless, while Utilitarianism is the key approach of Mill's politics, in On Liberty, Mill's ideal of utility departs from this discourse by disregarding the concept of natural rights. As mentioned earlier, individuality derives from personal development and self-realisation, 'grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive beings' (Mill, [1859] 2009, p.20), and this is the true utility of individuality. Thus, 'higher pleasures' (intellectual and moral) are valued more than base pleasures (physical or emotional), contributing to the society, and producing higher forms of happiness. In this sense, Mill 'left the true utilitarian spirit far behind' (Berkowitz, 200, p.148). Within his model, utility no longer accepts 'lower pleasures', embracing the most virtuous principles of individuality and liberty of
All of the cases presented in utilitarianism and Mill’s views are very vast. Mill does have some good points but really avoided justifying his theory.
Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987). Utilitarianism and other essays. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
In Mill's book Utilitarianism he makes a distinction between act and rule-utilitarianism. Both types of utilitarianism are not without great flaw and therefore cannot exist as a base for moral principle. By adding the branch of rule-utilitarianism to the utilitarian tree Mill tries to compensate for some of act-utilitarian's flaws but as seen rule-utilitarianism has it's own objections and does not improve on the simple of act-utilitarianism thought out by previous philosophers. Rule-utilitarianism just patches-up some of act-utilitarian holes only it does not cover the entire thing. Therefore utilitarianism is not a good theory for moral rightness.
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
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. Along with the criticism of Utilitarianism and the principle of utility being selfish, many argue that such a doctrine promotes expediency in order to benefit the person conducting the action alone. I would disagree with these criticisms, and find Mill’s argument valid. His argument counters