Everybody 's happiness counts the same. This version of the good is one that must maximize the good for everyone. My good counts just the same as anyone else 's good. Two specific forms of are Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Both forms agree that the overall aim of evaluating actions is key and should create the best results possible, but they differ about how exactly to get to those results.
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.
What I have found to be most interesting about both Deontology and Utilitarianism isn’t their approach to ethics, but rather their end goal. Deontology promotes “good will” as the ultimate good; it claims that each and every person has duties to respect others. On the other hand, Utilitarianism seeks to maximize general happiness. While these may sound rather similar at first glance (both ethical theories essentially center around treating people better), a deeper look reveals different motivations entirely. Deontology focuses on respecting the autonomy and humanity of others, basically preaching equal opportunity.
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 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.
To contest, I would start by reminding of the central values of utilitarianism, mainly on the idea of the greatest happiness principle and of the greatest overall happiness. Morally, the correct decision is the one that brings about the most happiness. And while thinking small I could see how one could assume that that might only mean the happiness of those directly involved, in actuality it tells us that it refers to all people equally and does not put any extra emphasis on people that are significant to the person, or even the person themselves. Therefore, if something was of some benefit to you and it could potentially be of some benefit
It is based upon “the greater happiness” principle, according to which the best action is the one that maximizes happiness. By ‘happiness’ it is meant obtaining pleasure and avoiding suffering. According to the doctrine, a person is supposed to aim in her actions at the largest possible amount of happiness, either in the magnitude of the benefit itself or in the number of people benefited. Moreover, long-term benefits outweigh short-term ones. Since “all action is for the sake of some end”, actions and their consequences are inseparable.
This is a view that goes by “the greatest good for the greatest number.” This means that the more people who are happy and can benefit from a certain action is the morally right thing to do. Happiness, in utilitarianism, comes from pleasure and the absence of pain, and unhappiness comes from the deprivation of pleasure which then would equal pain. The utilitarian approach to morality insinuates that no moral act or rule is essentially right or wrong. Instead, the rightness or wrongness of either an act or rule, is entirely a matter of the overall nonmoral good (pleasure, happiness, satisfaction of individual desire) produced in the consequences of doing that act or following that rule. In a nutshell, morality is a means to an end, but it is not an end in itself.
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. After explaining his argument, I believe Mill succeeds in responding to the objection, he explains why it shouldn’t be a problem when weighing the best possible outcome by using the secondary moral rule as the first principle. According to Mill, there are several elements to the principle of utility. First, it allows people to choose the action that promotes the most happiness. As stated, Mill believes that an action is right if it promotes happiness and an action is wrong if it promotes pain.
The Principle of Utility, also known as Utilitarianism, according to John Stuart Mill, says that to achieve “happiness”, the right thing to do is what will bring about the greatest good/happiness/pleasure for the greatest number of people who will be affected by the action. In essence, the consequences of actions. As long as you do no harm to another person, their property, or their liberty, the Harm Principle, you may do anything you like. Any particular action that is taken is either a “right” (moral) action or a “wrong” (immoral) action. To achieve a “right” action, that action must produce more happiness than sadness as a consequence.