John Stuart Mill 's The Principle Of Utility As The Standard For Determining The Rightness Of Actions

Throughout Philosophy, morality is a central theme. Although each scholar views the definition of morality differently, the goal of people to be better and think for themselves is the main focus. Many philosophers have defined and categorized utilitarianism in different ways. In normative ethics, Jeremy Bentham believes an action is right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it produces the reverse of happiness but not just the happiness of a person who performed the action but also everyone that was affected by it (Duignan). Utilitarianism is the view that the morally right action is the action that has the most good (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 in themselves making us perform them or do not do them at all. On the contrary, concepts of the good go hand and hand with that of rights and obligation causing obligation to be determined by intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). John Stuart Mill theory of utilitarianism reveals what is utilitarianism, the morality, proof of validity, and the connection between justice and utility in the study of thinking.

Some may believe that the Greatest Utility Principle may be too high of a standard. This principle focuses on the idea of happiness. The Greatest Utility Principle demands that we ought to do the greatest good for the greatest number. In some instances, this is possible. However, in other instances it seems like it is an unreal expectation. Overall, the Greatest Utility Principles seems to be too high of a standard. For example, a murder on the NU campus could seem morally valid.

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.

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.

John Mill conveys the concept of utilitarianism through a process of clarifying the misconceptions and counterarguments about utilitarianism. For the first part of Mill’s argument, Mill claims that there are different levels of pleasure and that every individual will always try to strive to improve their sense of dignity. For the second part of Mill’s argument, Mill indicates that individuals will act in the good of the people, not always in the good for only themselves because when an individual, who makes up the whole population, benefits from something good, then the whole population benefits as well.

The perceived end goal for most human experiences is happiness. However, the objective assessment of happiness creates challenges. Happiness is individual and personal, but the actions that people take to achieve happiness effect everyone in society. In this essay, I will investigate the standards for happiness utilizing John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism. Happiness is available to all people at different levels, with clear objective standards at its most basic levels but with only subjective standards at its higher levels. Although, people are able to obtain different levels of happiness based upon their faculties according to Mill, all are able to contribute to the greater good through their actions. Mill makes it clear early in his work that

If I asked random people on the street if it was ok to kill a friend most, if not all of them would answer with a resounding no but, under the right circumstances, utilitarians consider killing to be moral.The moral principle of Utilitarianism revolves around maximizing the happiness of the largest group of people that the utilitarians action will affect. To the utilitarian it is the consequences that matter and not the action itself, even if that action is to take a life. I agree with the claim that to be morally good a person must strive to act in a way that increases the happiness of the collective and that happiness is the only desirable end result and all other things are just a means to that end.

In the essay “Utilitarianism” by John Stuart Mill, he explains his support for utilitarianism and argues any misconceptions of it. In his essay he talks about the difference between higher and lower pleasures and what significance they have in his utilitarian moral theory. His theory is based on the rule that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Many people experience different kinds of pleasure and he talks about how they can differ in quality and quantity.

Another principle under which proponents defend physician-assisted deaths can be seen through John Stuart Mill’s theory of utilitarianism: it is an ethically appropriate act to shorten a patient’s life even if one lacks a worthwhile future. This could maximize societal happiness as well as reaffirming an individual’s importance to society. A similar argument can be made from consistency of practice which outlines that doctors already practice passive euthanasia having accounted a patient’s future life and thus in the interests of consistency, it is not wrong to kill them. However, Daniel Callahan, in opposing physician-assisted deaths brought this view into question by stating if ‘relief of suffering is critical, why should the relief be denied

There are many ethical theories that one can follow. As a result of there being many different theories, some can overlap while others can vary greatly. The two most widely known theories, Utilitarianism and Deontological ethics, greatly conflict with each other. They differ mostly in what they value most, the outcome vs. the action/motive. John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism itself differs from the original form of Utilitarianism created by Jeremy Bentham. Bentham felt that pleasure was wholly good, and that pain to the lone evil in the world, as he said, “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as what we shall do.” Mill updated Bentham’s theory to add a sort of strata to pleasure. Essentially, what Utilitarianism follows is the greatest happiness principle, which states that one should always do whatever allows for the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Immanuel Kant’s theory on the other hand is more complex, it can be summed up in one line by Kant himself, that line being, “Do what is right, though the world may perish.” It’s complexity come from the fact that it doesn’t require one to acknowledge the outcome, but rather action itself and the motive behind the action. This means that even if the outcome of something is good, if the actions or motives leading to the outcome aren’t moral, then it simply isn’t moral. Unlike

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,

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?’.

Utilitarianism as an example of consequentialism is a moral theory generally considered to have started in the late eighteenth century. In the book Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill he defined the ethical theory stating that “…actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”(7). The idea behind the theory is that people seek happiness, and that the ultimate goal of all human beings is to be happy. Therefore, according to the utilitarianism greatest happiness principle, when a person wishes to act in an ethically sound manner, he or she should strive to bring about the greatest possible amount of happiness for the greatest possible amount of people. In contrast, the distinction of a consequentialist theory of ethics from other ethical theories is that non-consequentialist judge the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the essential goods and not based on generating the greatest good. Indeed, utilitarian’s do not care about people’s personal agenda or whether their actions happen to hurt others. As long as the eventual results lead to more pleasure than pain, it is considered morally right.

John Stuart Mill was an influential English philosopher during the nineteenth century. His works mostly consisted of moral theories. For example, Mill discusses how a society should function as a whole by their moral values. One of Mill’s work, Utilitarianism, is one of the best known moral theories that focused on the idea that actions should produce the end result- happiness. Utilitarianism focused on the core idea that, if an action is morally right or wrong depends on the end result. The purpose of a morally right or wrong idea is if it will improve the life of others, not just the individual who is producing the pleasure.

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.