Mill's rule utilitarianism values nonmaleficence more than that of beneficence. Nonmaleficence is the duty to do no harm. Beneficene is the duty to good. Mill's believes that nonmaleficence maximizes pleasure to the most people thus making it primary to beneficene. In some situations nonmaleficence, which serves the sum, total of happiness is not for the greater good of the masses. “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, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mills, 1863 ch. 2).” When the rule utility is applied, it is not always the moral choice for the situation. The general rule can be broken by promoting general good in many cases.
Nonmaleficence is primary to beneficence according to Mill’s rule utilitarianism. Mill's states that we are to increase the sum total of happiness meaning that we must become impartial to our own happiness. “Though it is only in a very imperfect state of the world's arrangements that any one can best serve the happiness of others by the absolute sacrifice of his own (Mills, 1832 ch.2).” To increase the total sum of happiness the choice must bring happiness to the largest amount of people and minimize suffering. Beneficene, the duty to do good is wanting the highest quality of happiness, an action done to benefit others. (Pantilat, 2008) Mill’s is saying that affecting a larger amount is greater happiness than one-person experiencing sublime happiness from a choice. We may have to sacrifice for the general well-being of the group according to Mill’s principal theory. I do not agree with the practical application of rule utilitarianism. In some cas...
... middle of paper ...
...ions to the rule. In the case of implementing limitations for college, students on probation utility cannot be applied. In the case of the rioting mob and the missing child, the utility cannot be applied. These are only two examples of what may happen if rule utility is always applied, students would have failed out of school, and the mob would have rioted. Though the lesser happiness of the masses is implemented, it is the greater good. Though an action may serve, happiness to a larger amount of people does not make it the ethical choice.
Works Cited
Brannigan, M. C. (2005). Ethics across cultures: an introductory text with readings. Boston : McGraw-Hill.
Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. london: Parker, Son, And Bourn.
Pantilat, S. (n.d.). Beneficence vs. Nonmaleficence. Missinglink Notice. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/eth
The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong if they tend to deliver despondency or torment. Mill believes that the principle of utility is the perfect way to evaluate ethics is through the individual's happiness. People who have the opportunity to chose or purse there own form of happiness usually makes really wise ethical decisions, which improves society. I agree with mill’s theory because happiness always produces good things, which would very beneficial to the
...f it is unrecognizable to the eye. The standard that he is referring to is the principle of utility, which is also referred to as the “greatest happiness principle.” Mill makes it clear that utilitarianism has had great impact in shaping a moral basis of principles.
Mill grew up under the influences from his father and Bentham. In his twenties, an indication of the cerebral approach of the early Utilitarians led to Mill’s nervous breakdown. He was influential in the growth of the moral theory of Utilitarianism whose goal was to maximize the personal freedom and happiness of every individual. Mill's principle of utility is that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Utilitarianism is the concept that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote happiness for the greatest number of individual. He believes that Utilitarianism must show how the conversion can be made from an interest in one’s own particular bliss to that of others. John Stuart Mill also states that moral action should not be judged on the individual case but more along the lines of “rule of thumb” and says that individuals ought to measure the outcomes and settle on their choices in view of the consequence and result that advantages the most people. Mill believes that pleasure is the only wanted consequence. Mill supposes that people are gifted with the capacity for conscious thought, and they are not happy with physical delights, but rather endeavor to accomplish the joy of the psyche too. He asserts that individuals want pleasure and reject
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.
Mill’s Utilitarianism varies from the most general form of utilitarianism, which claims that one should assess persons, actions, and institutions by how well they promote humans’ happiness. Mill branches off of this basic explanation by interpreting the misconceptions of utilitarianism into utility. This utility is something in opposition to pleasure. In order words, mill utilitarianism utility is the greatest happiness principle.
First, I will discuss Mill’s principles and the requirements of his type of utilitarian ethics. Mill’s utilitarian principle can also be known as the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, which states that an action is good as long as it creates happiness. Mill sums up his principle by saying, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Mill argues that everyone desires his or her own happiness and thinks that happiness is the one main goal of all humans. However, just because one person desires his happiness doesn’t mean that this one person’s happiness will contribute to the overall society’s happiness. For example, if a person finds happiness in killing innocent people then this is obviously not contributing to the overall happiness of society. Sure, this may make the killer happy, but the families of the victim and society would be deeply angered and saddened from this occurrence. One of the main factors of Mill’s principle is that an action is good as long is it promotes more happiness than pain for society not just for one individual. It is the net happiness that Mill is concerned with rather than just the sole amount of happiness. As long as an action constitutes greater happiness than pain then Mill would deem this action good or moral...
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 claims that happiness is the ultimate good and the ultimate end of human being. According to me human being is applying this principle in his everyday life. By trying to attain our own happiness, we deal with situations where the happiness of others has to been taken into account. Thus, by applying the “rule utilitarianism” and taking into examples the previous situations others may have face, we can really improve our life and may be find a basis for the foundation of morality.
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...
There were some moral problems that Mill ran into with his principle. One of the first problems was that actions are right to promote happiness, but wrong as they sometimes tend to produce unhappiness. By moving a victim from a mangled car would be the noble thing to do but what if pulling him from the wreck meant killing him. He intended to produce a happy outcome, but in the end he created an unhappy situation. Utilitarianism declares that men can live just as well without happiness. Mill says yes, but men do not conduct their lives, always seeking happiness. Happiness does not always mean total bliss.
Nineteenth century British philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill sum up their theory of Utilitarianism, or the “principle of utility,” which is defined as, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Munson, 2012, p. 863). This theory’s main focus is to observe the consequences of an action(s), rather than the action itself. The utility, or usef...
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.
In this paper I will present and critically assess the concept of the principle of utility as given by John Stuart Mill. In the essay “What Utilitarianism Is” #, Mill presents the theory of Utilitarianism, which he summarizes in his “utility” or “greatest happiness principle” # (Mill 89). Mill’s focus is based on an action’s resulting “happiness,” # pleasure and absences of pain, or “unhappiness,” # discomfort and the nonexistence of contentment, rather than the intentions involved (Mill 89). After evaluating Mill’s principle, I will then end this essay by discussing my personal opinion about the doctrine and how I believe it can be altered to better suit real-life situations.
This principle promotes a life of more pleasure than pain by choosing actions that produce more happiness. These are conscious actions made that follow a life of utility and act in accordance with the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” Though Mill’s critics would argue that Utilitarianism is not a reasonable foundation for morality by not fulfilling a life of happiness, creating selfish or expedient people, and reducing human experience to animals, I would have to disagree. This principle promotes happiness and pleasure for all, along with aiding individuals to be less selfish, and an even slate for people of all characters. I find the “Greatest Happiness Principle” to be a relevant and altruistic foundation of morality. There is an emphasis on lives containing more pleasure than pain under the rule that one person cannot put their own happiness above others. I think a type of morality such as this would be more successful than other forms of morality because it wants every human life to be a life filled with more pleasure than pain. I see this as an appropriate foundation because it promotes good over bad, which is ultimately the function of morality as a whole. As written by Raymond Plant, “Since the principle of the individual is to try to satisfy his desires…the principle of society should be to try to advance the satisfactions of those who belong to the society…”
For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral. There is no connection between them so they are never in conflict relative to their moral beliefs. However, within the context of Ethical Relativism there’s a significant difference. Normally, two cultures will possess varying proportions of the same normal and abnormal habits yet from a cross-cultural standpoint, what is abnormal in one culture can be seen as properly normal in an...