Mill’s Utilitarianism
Stephanie Ambario
11/10/14
Philosophy 120
Tues/Thurs 9:30-10:45
Instructor: Dr. Mariana Anagnostopoulos
Mill’s Utilitarianism
Part A: Objection to Utilitarianism The main objection I’ll be focusing on is “Are consequences all that matter?” (EMP 112). This objection states that to determine if an action is right, the results must be viewed to see what the outcome has produced. Thus the outcome surpasses the means of the action and become the central point of interest. Hence “The morality of an action depends solely on the consequences of an action; nothing else matters.”(EMP110) This objection also targets the aspect of the idea that an “action’s consequences matter only if they involve the greater or lesser
…show more content…
This case is very recent and relevant to the Ebola epidemic effecting the world today. The facts of this case are:
• 7 months ago, executives at the biotechnology company, Chimerix, received death threats after refusing to give an experimental drug to a 7-year-old boy (Josh) who was close to dying from a viral
…show more content…
He would state that what is most important in the case is overall happiness of all individuals. Not just happiness but what is morally the right thing to do overall. Happiness of course is complex and made up of many components so other “ingredients” beside virtue must be taken account of. Mill wouldn’t oppose the use of the drug Brincidofovir because it has proven to work on Ebola. Not using it would lessen happiness of Ebola infected individuals which goes against Mill’s goal to have happiness for all. This being said, knowing that the drug isn’t fully tested or passed FDC (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) or CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) regulations would lead Mill to question the ethnicity of using the drug. Not to mention all the controversy attached to who has the right to have the drug administered first. This then shows how happiness isn’t just about morality and justice but what is logically right to do. In the end, the drug has so far shown to work, even though just on a few cases. Thus according to Mill, happiness is the ultimate goal not the consequences of the action unless they lessen
I don’t believe so. I must begin my argument with two definitions and one assumption. First, Rule Utilitarianism states that right action is defined by whether or not a given action is an instance of a moral rule that tends to maximize utility. Second, Act Utilitarianism states that right action is defined by whether or not a given action maximizes utility. Finally, the Utilitarian Principle holds that right actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. I hope that my assumption will be granted as it is taken verbatim from the text. With these notions as a starting point I believe that I can now show Mill to be an act-utilitarian.
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
people’s overall happiness and this is what God desires, so in fact this theory includes God
John Stuart Mills is a philosopher who is strongly associated with utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophy which puts morality in the greater good. Often associated with sigma, the summation of benefit is the only determinant of what makes something morally right. In Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mills compares his form of utilitarianism with the Golden Rule of Jesus of Nazareth which states, “To do as you would be done by” and “To love your neighbor as yourself.” Mills states that these statements constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality. The utilitarian morality as described previously is one where everyone acts in utility. This is so that the maximum amount of happiness can be attained which would satisfies everyone’s
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,
Mill's Utilitarianism When faced with a moral dilemma, utilitarianism identifies the appropriate considerations, but offers no realistic way to gather the necessary information to make the required calculations. This lack of information is a problem both in evaluating the welfare issues and in evaluating the consequentialist issues which utilitarianism requires be weighed when making moral decisions. Utilitarianism attempts to solve both of these difficulties by appealing to experience; however, no method of reconciling an individual decision with the rules of experience is suggested, and no relative weights are assigned to the various considerations. In deciding whether or not to torture a terrorist who has planted a bomb in New York City, a utilitarian must evaluate both the overall welfare of the people involved or effected by the action taken, and the consequences of the action taken. To calculate the welfare of the people involved in or effected by an action, utilitarianism requires that all individuals be considered equally.
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.
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.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory, meaning the morality of our actions is judged according to the consequences they bring about. According to utilitarianisms, all our actions should promote happiness. For Mill, happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain. In this paper, I will discuss the objection to Utilitarianism that is only fit for a swine, and Mill’s responses to that objection. Those people who reject this moral theory will say utilitarianism does not grant human life enough value compared to that of a pig. Mill gives an effective response and states that humans can and are the only ones that experiences higher pleasures and qualities of life, which make a human's life better than a pig's life.
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.
In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.
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...