Mills Utilitarianism

In an age where humanity realizes the differences between right and wrong, and ponders why they choose whichever side they do, utilitarianism provides and answer.
The principle of Utilitarianism as written by J.S. Mills can be summed up in his precise language, ‘actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.’ Essentially, the morally correct action is the action that produces the most happiness, and the action that produces unhappiness is the morally incorrect action, and that this is the basis for morality. For example, if you have 20 dollars to spend and you have the option to either buying yourself an ice cream cone or not spending your money, the action that provides

Let’s say that buying the ice cream cone will increase your utility by an arbitrary value of 5 whereas saving your money will increase utility by 4. In this scenario, the action that provides you the most utility is buying the ice cream cone, as it will increase your happiness more than not spending your money. Net utility is also applicable, as if buying ice cream would give you 5 arbitrary units of happiness but buying ice cream for 3 others would give them each 2 units of happiness, the morally correct action would be to buy the others ice cream as they achieve the highest net utility from this. Another aspect of utilitarianism is the difference between higher and lower pleasures. While in the previous example, a quantitative measurement of utilitarianism was useful, Mills on the whole rejects a quantitative measurement of utility because he recognizes that some forms of pleasure that provide happiness are different than others. The happiness gained from learning a new language cannot be quantitatively measured against the happiness of going shopping or traveling. Mills then goes on to argue that humans are creatures that would choose higher quality pleasures over lower quality pleasures; lower quality pleasures being the desire for food and

George has a PhD in chemistry and is finding it difficult to find a job. He is not in the best health, which limits the kinds of jobs he can take. He has young children that need taking care off but his wife is working to support them, which causes more strain on his family. One of George’s older colleagues tells George that he can get him a decently paying job in a laboratory; however this laboratory specializes in chemical and biological warfare, which is against George 's moral code. George wishes to not take the job, but his friend tells him that if George turns down the job, it will go to another colleague of theirs. George’s friend is concerned because this other colleague truly believes in the work of the laboratory and will pursue his research with a greater passion than George, potentially causing the creation of new chemical and biological weapons. The question remains, what should George