Utilitarianism is the concept that the best action in any given instance is the one that optimizes wellbeing usually in terms of conscious entities. Jeremy Bentham explained utility as being the acquisition of pleasure with a disregard for any pain or difficulty experienced by an individual as a result of that action. Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, which proposes that the consequences of any action is the only measure of whether that action was right or wrong. Utilitarianism is different from other forms of consequentialism because it considers all interests equally. John Stuart Mill was a proponent of utilitarianism and put forth arguments in its support. There are however some flaws in the arguments he provided. Mill argues in support of the Utilitarianism by seeking to counter certain arguments against utilitarianism especially the argument that it reduces humanity to the pursuit of easy pleasures and forsaking the more difficult and often delayed pleasures of intellectual pursuits.
John Stuart Mill discusses the conception of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus of his ideas of the harm principle and a touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom on action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts about the conception on liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts on the conception of liberty, but I also plan to discuss my thoughts and feelings. I have a few disagreements with Mill on the harm principle; they will be stated and explained. My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective.
When it comes to glue usage, kindergarten teachers the world over agree that a dab will do. Nevertheless, despite centuries of debate, there is no such consensus about the ideal amount of individualism a society should desire. In his 1863 work On Liberty, philosopher John Stuart Mill seeks to address this issue, and explain the generally salutary progress of human thought and behavior. He concludes that most reasonable minds are produced through discussion and debate with the varied viewpoints of others, advocating for intellectual diversity. Mill also argues that, on a societal level, civilized outcomes are accomplished best through a mix of conformity to customs and individual agency to alter social norms. Mill’s arguments establish that individuals, or even isolated groups, are less effective than well-connected, heterogeneous groups; the later works of Putnam and Kwon et al. bolster and extend this truth with specific, contemporary evidence.
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
This paper will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument about the freedom of expression of opinion, and how Mill justified that freedom. I will also discuss how strong his argument was and whether or not I agree with it. John Stuart Mill was a political economist, civil servant, and most importantly an English philosopher from the nineteenth century. Throughout his writing, John Stuart Mill touched on the issues of liberty, freedom and other human rights. In his philosophical work, On Liberty, he discussed the relationship between authority and liberty, as well as the importance of individuality in society. In chapter two of On Liberty, Mill examined the freedom of expression in more detail, examining arguments for and against his own.
According to society, it displays that when people are with their family and friends, they are exceeding 31% great in school. This reveals that happiness helps kids to improve in school, however some people disagree with this argument. In the article, an autobiography, by John Stuart Mill(1909), claims that people focus on happiness too much, and that people are displaying the wrong activities to find it. To support the thesis, John Stuart Mill creates his own opinion, that the reader could relate to. The author wants to catch the reader’s attention, in order to push them focus on how they are finding happiness. Nevertheless, John Stuart Mill wants the reader to relate to his opinion. For example, when people are kind or help out a friend
To paraphrase, John Stuart Mill argues that we can never justify the silencing of people. Even in the case that all but one have the same opinion, that one with a differing opinion is still not justifiable to silence. (Mill 1) I will argue that the opinion of another should never be suppressed for any reason, because everyone is entitled to their own opinion no matter what it may be; because we all deserve basic freedom of speech; because the society as a whole loses as well as the individual being silenced, loses by the silencing of one’s opinion. (Mill 2)
If we were to live in a society where John Stuart Mill’s harm principle was the only normative basis for law, we would live in a society in which racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression could never be dealt away with, a society in which no business owner could be judicially discouraged from putting up a sign that says, “WHITES ONLY,” or “NO JEWS,” outside of his or her business, and as a result, a society that would be constantly teetering from one outbreak of genocidal violence to another. Perhaps this might seem like an over dramatization, but the fact of the matter is, if “the only purpose for which power [could] be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community…[were] to prevent harm to others,” than by anyone’s count,
Mill’s rebuttal to the third objection is based off that Christians do not read the Bible every time they have to make decisions. Furthermore, Mill says that ever since humans have existed we have learned from our ancestors what certain effects result from certain actions and that through time we have the consciousness to tell apart from what’s right and wrong. It is true that as humans we want to perform actions that promote pleasure and the absence of pain, but most of our human experiences follow common-sense morality. Mill provides a distinction in utilitarianism where he gives a fundamental principle of morality and a subordinate principle through what he calls the criterion of rights and the decision procedure: “Whatever we adopt as
John Stuart Mill begins the explanation of his version of Utilitarianism by replying to common misconceptions that people hold regarding the theory, and as a result describes his own theory more clearly. The main issue that Mill raises is that people misinterpret the word “utility” as in opposition to “pleasure”. However, utility is actually defined as pleasure itself and also the absence of pain.
John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher and a political economist, had an important part in forming liberal thought in the 19th century. Mill published his best-known work, _On Liberty,_ in 1859. This foundational book discusses the concept of liberty. It talks about the nature and the limits of the power performed by society over an individual. The book also deals with the freedom of people to engage in whatever they wish as long as it does not harm other persons.
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.
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.
In his work On Liberty, Mill placed much emphasis on individual liberty and its vital role in political society. To Mill, this phrase may be defined as the liberty of the individual to be the final judge over his actions; to decide what is right and wrong and to act upon that standard. On a secondary level, it also implies one's freedom to pursue one's own individuality. Mill believed in a society in which each individual leads his own distinctive life according to his own unique talents; unfettered by regulations upon thought, opinion, actions etc.
“Absolute liberty is the absence of restraint; responsibility is restraint; therefore, the ideally free individual is responsible to himself” - Henry Brooks Adams. There has been great debate, past and present with regards to what constitutes as an individuals liberty. It has been subject to constant ridicule and examination due to violations of civil rights. Freedom, liberty, and independence are all important human rights represented within John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty.