Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Mill's utilitarianism explained
Utilitarianism eassy
Mill's utilitarianism explained
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Utilitarianism
There are many ethical theories that guide people in their daily lives when it comes to decision making. One of these theories is known as utilitarianism and it refers to a model that supposes an action is only right if it brings out greater happiness to the largest number of people. In essence, if an action results in happiness, it is perceived as morally right and wrong is the opposite happiness. Mill analyzes utilitarianism on the same level but adds a different twist to the theory. To understand utilitarianism as developed by Mill, this study will apply his ethical principles to a case showing which actions are morally right and the rationale for choosing such actions.
Embryo cloning is a relatively new development in biology and one that is perceived as a major achievement in the medical world. The stem cells that are harvested from the embryos can be used to achieve many goals. Adult stem cells can only develop into specific body organs and are, therefore, only useful in treating such places. Embryonic stem cells on the other hand, are more useful as they can be used to develop any organ (Banchoff). This difference makes the stem cells from an embryo more viable when it comes to research than adult stem cells. The use of these stem cells has attracted various opponents including the church, which has argued that harvesting these stem cells violate the right to life provided to the embryo. Although there is no near end to this debate, this study will utilize a utilitarian approach to understand the ethical issues in the debate, by examining a patient that suffers from kidney failure. This will enable the reader to have a clearer picture of the ethical dilemma that plagues this issue.
Jeremy and Embryo Stem Cell...
... middle of paper ...
...eved. Mill argues that pleasure can be measured if different people experience the same phenomenon and tend to prefer one to the other, hence showing that the preferred phenomena is ethical (Mill, Utilitarianism). Similarly, if people were placed in Jeremy’s shoes, many would most likely choose to be happy and end up choosing embryo cloning.
Works Cited
Banchoff, Thomas F. Embryo Politics: Ethics and Policy in Atlantic Democracies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011.
Jain, Kewal K. Textbook of Personalized Medicine. London: Springer, 2009.
Mclean, Sheila A. M. First Do No Harm: Law Ethics and Healthcare. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2013.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Boston, MA: MobileReference, 2010.
Mill, John Stuart, Jeremy Bentham and John Troyer. The Classical Utilitarians: Bentham and Mill. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2003.
A person's individuality begins at conception and develops throughout life. These natural developments can now be changed through genetically engineering a human embryo. Through this process, gender, eye and hair color, height, medical disorders, and many more qualities can be changed. I believe genetically engineering a human embryo is corrupt because it is morally unacceptable, violates the child's rights, and creates an even more divided society.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that an action is considered right as long as it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later was refined by J.S Mill. Mill differs from Bentham by introducing a qualitative view on pleasure and makes a distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. John Hospers critiques utilitarianism and shows that rule utilitarianism under more specific and stricter rules would promote utility better. Bernard Williams believes that utilitarianism is too demanding from people and instead believes virtue ethics is a better solution. Williams seems to have only considered act utilitarianism instead of rule utilitarianism, which may have better responses to the problems proposed by Williams. Sterling Hardwood purposes eleven objections to utilitarianism which can be used to help make compromise between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. I will argue that rule utilitarianism can be formed in such a way that it avoids the problems that arise from Williams, and Hardwood.
Stem cell research is a heavily debated topic that can stir trouble in even the tightest of Thanksgiving tables. The use cells found in the cells of embryos to replicate dead or dying cells is a truly baffling thought. To many, stem cell research has the potential to be Holy Grail of modern medicine. To many others, it is ultimately an unethical concept regardless of its capabilities. Due to how divided people are on the topic of stem cell research, its legality and acceptance are different everywhere. According to Utilitarianism, stem cell research should be permitted due to the amount of people it can save, however according to the Divine Command of Christianity, the means of collecting said stem cells are immoral and forbidden.
Throughout the essay, Mills speaks highly of utilitarianism as a way to construct a happier more stable society. “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness” (Mill 137). The ideas of such political philosophers such as Mills and Bentham enticed the modern world at the time of their publication, including the people of the U.S. The concept of utilitarianism started shaping America many years ago, and it is important to realize its consequence in modern day
In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,
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 Stuart. "Utilitarianism." Gendler, Tamar Szabo, Susanna Siegel and Steven M. Cahn. The Elements of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. 77-80.
Cahn, Steven M., and Peter J. Markie. "John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism; Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is." 2009. Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. 4th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. 330-41. Print.
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...
In Utilitarianism the aim of our actions is to achieve happiness for the greatest number of people. “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mill, 1971). Utilitarianism directly appeals to human emotions and our reactions to different events. Emotions are a fundamental Way of Knowing and influence both ethical and economical theories. In most cultures there are fundame...
Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987). Utilitarianism and other essays. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Pojman, L. (2002). 6: Utilitarianism. Ethics: discovering right and wrong (pp. 104-113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...
Driver, J. 2009. The History of Utilitarianism. [online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/#JerBen [Accessed: 14 Mar 2014].
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...