Comparing Mill And Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism’s believe in that only the outcomes matter when it comes to decisions and morality, however, those outcomes can also be questioned. Mill forms the framework of utilitarianism by discussing it in a way that makes assumptions; these objections can also be questioned against also.

For centuries philosophers have attempted to explain morals, creating ideas that break this ethical system down into basic components. English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, was a large contributor to the idea of utilitarianism. Although Mill’s utilitarianism provides a strong argument for explaining morality, it is not a bulletproof theory.

“The greatest good for the greatest number”; that is how the British philosopher John Stuart Mill famously summarized utilitarianism (Shafer-Landau, 2012b, p. 120). He is not only one of the greatest utilitarians, he is also a hedonist. Hence, he believed that this greatest good can be achieved by focussing all action on attaining the greatest amount of happiness. Mill describes utility as holding ‘that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness’ ((Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 17). He defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and unhappiness as pain and the privation of pleasure. Hence, Mill argues that only pleasure is intrinsically desirable and only misery intrinsically bad (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 120). All other desirable things are only desirable as means to promote pleasure or prevent pain (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 18). Therefore, in order to refute Mill’s utilitarianism, one would have to show that there is something other than pleasure or the freedom from pain that is intrinsically desirable. First, Robert Nozick’s attempt to disprove utilitarianism and hedonism in the shape of his ‘experience machine’ will be explained. Next, Mill’s arguments in favour of utilitarianism and hedonism will be recapitulated in an attempt to answer the central research question: why does Nozick’s experience

Kant whole idea about about morals is that good will is good when the action is carried out even if there is no happiness or positive benefits that come from it. The responsibilities that then come from doing that good will are called duties and duties are supposed to be performed in a non influential manner. When a duty is done to gain happiness or out of love, then that person would be acting in an immoral manner from Kant’s viewpoint because he is not doing the duty for itself alone.

Utilitarianism - the direction in moral philosophy based J. Bentamomv treatise "Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation" (1780) and developed in its classical form and is called utilitarianism. JC Mila ("Utilitarianism", 1863). Mill formulated the basic arguments of utilitarianism. numerous objections against critics; main pathos myllevskoy controversy was directed against apryoryzma and yntuytyvyzma and personally - against Kant and his English followers. According to utilitarianism, morality is a common good (happiness as most people), which Bentham called the common good, definitely distinguishing it from the benefit or personal gain. The principle benefit he understood the principle of action selection and evaluation of actions, which focuses on the maximum benefit more. If the action affects the interests of the community, then it is a benefit (happiness) community, if - the interests of the individual, then it is a benefit of the individual. Formula common good - "the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people" - met before, F. Hutcheson, Charles

Mill and Bentham are two important philosophers that have stood by the moral theory of classical utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, a form of hedonism, is defined by Mill as “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals… holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (241). Happiness is the ultimate intrinsically valuable desire according to human nature and consequently pains are intrinsically repulsed. Mill and Bentham have their own perspective on this philosophical concept. This paper will explore and analyze the commonalities that Mill and Bentham share from utilitarianism as well as the conflicts their viewpoints have with each other. Bentham’s work will be critiqued to prove why Mill’s

4. Give a clear and concise explanation of J.S. Mill’s Utilitarian Principle. How does Mill’s view differ from Bentham’s view? What is this supposed to help us with, morally speaking? Discuss critically.

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.

One of the attacks on Utilitarianism is that it is impossible to obtain happiness, Mill agrees but only if you are arguing that a life of happiness is one of continuously high pleasure. Mill realistically says that happiness often only lasts for moments - with a few exceptions. Utilitarianism is focused on obtaining a life with few pains in-between many moments of various pleasure - a happy life, not an unobtainable perfect life.

John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher that believed in utilitarianism. Per utilitarianism, the source of moral duty comes from the consequences of an action. Mill is known for his Greatest Happiness Principle, which says actions are right when they promote the “greatest happiness” to the greatest number of people. Whether Mill’s statement is right or wrong is debatable. In the general sense, his statement seems logical. Doing what will make a greater number of people happy is what we should do. In order to determine what is good, a person must weigh the outcome of his or her actions. What may please the most people seem logical, but has issues associated. It can lead to overlooking a person’s individual right and interferes with equality.

Sometimes in life you are faced with a decision that no matter what you do the desired outcome will not be what you would personally desire to happen. In the moral dilemma of the young man that has been conscripted by his government to fight a war, while at the same time leave his mother back at home with a terminal illness, there is no simple right answer. This delimit was proposed by Jean-Paul Sarte. On one level this dilemma could be addressed by Mill’s and a Utilitarian view, if the young man goes to serve his country he would be serving the greater good and happiness of all, possibly helping many more people than if he stayed and took care of his ailing mother. Under these teachings even though it would not make the soldier happy to leave his mother in a time of need, the idea of serving and making the most people happy as possible, would serve the greatest good.

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that holds the morally right course of action in any given situation is the course of which yields the greatest balance of benefits over harms. More specifically, utilitarianism’s core idea is that the effects of an action determine whether actions are morally right or wrong. Created with the philosophies of Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), Utilitarianism began in England in the 19th Century. Bentham and Mill built their system of Utilitarianism on ancient hedonism (pursuing physical pleasure and avoiding physical pain). Although both of these philosophers agreed on the basic principals of Utilitarianism they disagreed on what exactly hedonism is.

One man derives his pleasure from a combination of sadism and masochism, a perverted fixation on pain inflicted on others and himself. Another man derives his pleasure from pursuing a higher calling in charity work. Yet another seeks out pleasure within himself, this is achieved through various forms of meditation and reading. However, the source of pleasure in these three different approaches remains the same, neurochemistry. An act done in order to stimulate a synaptic process in the brain which then releases a flood of dopamine, serotonin, and a host of other neurotransmitters in order to achieve a feeling of satisfaction. At its core, John Stuart Mill’s philosophy of utilitarianism views the pleasurable outcome of an action to be the foundation

Explain why Mill distinguishes between higher and lower pleasures and assess whether he achieves his aim or not.

This work has probably received more analysis than any other work on utilitarianism available. However, I seek to do here what many others have been unable to accomplish so far. I hope to, in five paragraphs, cover each of the chapters of Utilitarianism in enough depth to allow any reader to decide whether or not they subscribe to Mill's doctrine, and if so, which part or parts they subscribe to. I do this with the realization that much of Mill's deliberation in the text will be completely gone. I suggest that anyone who seeks to fully understand Mill's work should read it at length.