John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human

How do we apply aged philosophies to present day problems? Like his forefather John Stuart Mill, modern thinker Peter Singer approaches moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree that selflessness can end human suffering. In addition, their views concerning the significance of consequences align; however, they conflict on the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism by accurately recognizing the discrepancy between absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also by considering the intricate concept of motive.

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.

In John Stuart Mill’s book, Utilitarianism (1863) he challenges many critics that are against his theory. One of which is the claim that Utilitarianism is a swine doctrine. They interpret the theory by saying a humans ultimate goal in life, is that of a swine; pleasure in the absence of pain. It is quite an understandable remark, but definitely is an over analyzed critique, in my opinion. Mill however replies to the critics in grave detail, defending his theory. Although many strengths and weaknesses are apparent, I recognize the higher and lower pleasures response, a very strong reply to a weak critique.

The utilitarian idea is one that has been there for quite a long time. Prevalent among the minds of many philosophers, they have sought to define ethics and morals from every angle. As any other topic, they have all come up with various principles some of which have similarities and others differences. Philosophers such as John Stuart Mill, Aristotle, Kant and Nel Noddings all differ in opinion. John Stuart Mill, developed on the utilitarianism principle or the “greatness happiness principle”.

John Stuart Mill, in contrast to Bentham, makes a clear distinction between higher and lower pleasures in his essay on “Utilitarianism.” In fact, he claims that not all pleasures are the same, dividing them into intellectual pleasures and physical pleasures. He asserts that the pleasures of the mind are undoubtedly safer than those of the body because there are no consequent risks related to them. Certainly, he makes a valid point in specifying that the pleasures of the flesh can lead to the damage of the individual. For instance, human beings tend to chase physical pleasures, rather than those of the intellect. We could state that it is human nature to do so because we are always in search of what satisfies us in the very moment that we crave

One of the most well known ethical theories is the theory of utilitarianism as described by, one of its strongest advocates, John Stuart Mill, in his book Utilitarianism. To put his argument simply, utilitarianism can be summarized as the greatest amount of good for the largest number of people. While, no one can argue that all people strive to be happy, I disagree with the claims that are ultimately supposed to support the theory. Instead of strengthening his argument, segments of the book undermine and put holes in his reasoning, which serve undercut the ideology as a whole. Mill’s claims fail to acknowledge important aspects of humanity such the complexity of our feelings and emotions,

Utilitarianism has been defined as a philosophy which supports the view that the actions of every person are motivated by the desire to maximize utility. In this paper I seek to answer questions based on the understanding of utilitarianism as discussed by John Stuart Mill in chapter four.

In this chapter of John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian doctrine, he further clarifies and defends his argument against criticism. The first misconception he clarifies is that utility is not in opposition to pleasure. In reality, Mill uses utility as pleasure with the absence of pain – this is the base for morality. He calls his theory the Greatest Happiness Principle because under utilitarian principles, the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people is the goal. This means that it is not necessarily moral to pursue personal happiness because morality is dictated by the greatest happiness principle. The only good actions are ones that have overall good consequences, meaning that the outcomes of an action determine the moral

In “Utilitarianism,” John Stuart Mill responds to several objections to the utilitarian view, but what exactly is the utilitarianism view. Utilitarianism is the view that an action is good to the extent that it produces the greatest possible overall happiness or utility. According to Mill, utility is the pleasure itself and the absence of pain. What this means is that pleasure and the absence of pain are the only things desirable as end in themselves. It's the only things that is inherently good. A good example of utilitarianism would have to be about the Trolley Problem or to me gay rights. With gay rights, legalizing gay marriage would cause the greatest amount of happiness. Therefore, any circumstance, event, or experiences is desirable only if it for pleasure.

John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher, politician and economist. His work is called Utilitarianism which stands for the greatest happiness principles. Utilitarianism is both a psychological and a moral theory. Mills talks about the happiness that people desire and what people should do. Furthermore, Mill answers the objection by states: “Any moral theory that admits we can be torn between competing considerations is going to be open to misuse”. People cannot calculate the impact of their action. We cannot tell of the future. Human beings does not have control of their future. There is no code that warns in advance for things to be done in the right way. He also states that calculating is hard, people cannot just calculate everything that

John Stuart Mill was responsible for putting forth the utilitarian ethical theory. Utilitarianism is a theory which states the best action is one which maximizes one’s utility. This utility is usually defined as the well-being of humans and sentient animals. Utility is also defined as the sum of all pleasure that results from an action, minus the suffering of anyone involved. In other words, if an act performed is done for the greater good of humanity, it is morally right whether or not some people are harmed in the process.

Throughout Philosophy, morality is a central component. Although, each scholar views the definition of morality differently, the common underlining theme is that of individuals striving to become better and think for themselves. Morality plays a big part in utilitarianism. Many philosophers have defined utilitarianism in a variety of different ways like Jeremy Bentham who believes an action is right if happiness is promoted and wrong if it reverse happiness, including but not limited to the person happiness who did the action but everyone that was affected by it (Duignan). One of utilitarianism views is the action that has the most good is the morally right action (Driver). The foundation of morality in utilitarianism comes from utility or intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). In utilitarianism, actions are evaluated by their utility instead of intrinsic properties of the actions (Skorupski 256). Utilitarianism says certain acts are right or wrong within themselves, making us perform them or avoid them entirely. On the contrary, concepts of the good go hand and hand with that of rights and obligation, causing obligation to be determined in reference to intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). John Stuart Mill’s theory of utilitarianism clearly breaks down this concept’s definition and structure by focusing on its morality, proof of validity, and connection between justice and utility in the study of thinking.

Significantly, Mill’s act utilitarianism is concerned with an action’s consequence, not intentions, and differs from Jeremy Bentham’s version of the theory, in that it is focused on making the total amount of happiness largest, instead of maximizing the number of people who are happy. For evaluating morality, Mill was a proponent of using a scientific method that consisted of asking a question and making observations, before evaluating the results to form a testable hypothesis.

One would be right in assuming that we would not do something in life unless it has something to offer us. There is no point to complete an action unless the action’s consequence benefitted us in some way. Furthermore, there a notion that in life we must aspire to do more than just what we like, understanding that living life is taking the bad with the good. However, for hedonists this notion is non-existent. Hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure while simultaneously avoiding pain, deriving happiness only from pleasure achieved and pain avoided. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham are two philosophers who fall into the Utilitarian and hedonist camp. However, while both men are Utilitarian, they differ greatly in their thoughts on hedonism. Where Bentham takes a quantitative stance, Mill assumes the, admittedly more complicated, quantitative position. In Mill doing so, he distinguishes between two types of pleasure: higher pleasures and lower pleasures. In this paper, I plan to prove that Mill’s view is not philosophically defensible. I will do so by showing that Mill ventures from Hedonism as he takes a more objective stance that is not based on pleasure alone.