John Stuart Mill's Utilitarian Form Of Happiness

The utility test stems from the Utilitarian Principle where the consequences of one’s actions determine right or wrong; the ends justify the means. Utilitarian ideas primarily came to fruition in the eighteenth century as three of the most prominent utilitarian philosophers released their works within the same timeframe, all principally speaking to the greatest happiness principle. John Stuart Mill, a distinguished British philosopher of utilitarianism, once stated, “The creed which accepts as the foundations of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Specifically meaning that the only relevant actions are those producing consequences that can be derived as either good or bad (West, 2010). The purpose of one’s actions is to create a better life through the influx of happiness with the decrease of unhappiness in their surrounding environment; the best course of action to pursue is the path that manufactures the best/greatest possible outcomes.

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 the Utilitarian doctrine the consideration of pleasure and pain is constrained to ends. By this doctrine pleasure is the only thing desirable as an end and pain is the only thing undesirable as an end. Everything else is good or evil as it tends to promote pleasure or pain*. I will argue that pain should be considered as a means as well as an end and show that this is consistent with John Stuart Mill’s version of Utilitarianism. Conjoining the consideration of pain as a means and the notion of association of ideas, I will give what I hope is a unique explanation as to why higher pleasures are so often considered superior to lower pleasures. Finally I will end with a short exposition that may help to explain Mill’s mental crisis of 1826 by using the ideas advanced in this paper.

John Stuart Mill wrote on his moral theory of Utilitarianism, which many have refuted by explaining that it failed to respect the dignity and worth of human beings. Mills theory of utility bases an actions morality on its ability to create the maximum amount of happiness. Happiness as described by Mill, is the maximization of pleasure over grief. Some critics have even said that Mill’s theory degraded humans to swine as it belittled morals to come from pleasures of the body that even animals had. Mill defended his theory by stating that human happiness is much more complex than that of swine. I do not believe that Mill’s defense was particularly convincing, and many facets of his theory continue to degrade the dignity, values, and worth of humans.

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.

Along with other noted philosophers, John Stuart Mill developed the nineteenth century philosophy known as Utilitarianism - the contention that man should judge everything in life based upon its ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. While Bentham, in particular, is acknowledged as the philosophy’s founder, it was Mill who justified the axiom through reason. He maintained that because human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, they are not merely satisfied with physical pleasures; humans strive to achieve pleasures of the mind as well. Once man has ascended to this high intellectual level, he desires to stay there, never descending to the lower level of

I will be explaining John Stuart Mill’s view on ethics. This includes explaining the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, happiness, unhappiness, quality of pleasure, lying, and the relevance of time with his view. I will then explain how I agree with the principle of Rule Utilitarianism. I will also consider the objection of conflicting rules in Rule Utilitarianism as well as that of negative responsibility, giving my response to each.

Furthermore, Despite Walter Glannon’s second argument against genetic enhancement for personal gain, I contend that the philosophy of John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism can be used to show that society should will that genetic enhancement be morally acceptable if the adverse cognitive or emotional effects are outweighed by the benefits. Glannon argues that gene enhancement is morally objectionable because “there would be the unacceptable social cost of some people suffering from adverse cognitive or emotional effects of the enhancement.” Under Utilitarianism, society would likely deem that genetic enhancement is acceptable even though there is a risk of adverse cognitive or emotional effects. This is because the consequences of the

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.

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.

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

The author, John Stuart Mill, claims that people neglect to pursue principles of morality. The principle of utility, which was mentioned by Bentham Latterly as the greatest happiness principle, is often used against the sophist or so called philosophers. Mill argues how human beings don’t question on society’s beliefs and their actions that have been based upon from the past generations or traditions.

Don’t focus on happiness or you will never find it. Pay attention to the positive things going on around you and happiness will come unexpectedly. When it comes to the topic of Happiness, most of us will readily agree that wealth and lots of materials will make people happy. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question are rich people considered happier than the non rich? Whereas some are convinced that yes, rich people are happier because they are not behind on bills and don’t have to worry about putting food on the table. Others maintain that no, rich people who have too much money will make you poor at heart. As the prominent philosopher John Stuart Mill puts it, “ Those only are happy (I thought) who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness; on the happiness of others, on the improvement of mankind, even on some art or pursuit, followed not as a means, but as itself an ideal end.” I have come to agree that happiness should not be looked for because if you spend time looking you’ll lose everything that is happening currently.

John Stuart Mill wrote his work Utilitarianism in response to the Hedonist ideologies present throughout the 19th century. In it, he discusses his views on the responsibility of society to seek the greater good through higher pleasures. I feel that this work could be supported through an individualistic approach that fulfills both responsibilities to the self and society.

I believe that Mill's idea of Greater Happiness can work, and is an easy way to think about morality (easy enough to explain to the general public). However, it only works conditionally. A lot of the questions we had to think about involved two choices. The happiness of one person, or the happiness of many others. There were multiple variations to this question, but the premise stays the same. Mill's idea can potentially work and also not work, and the reason is that it depends on the intent of the people we are deciding between. If we decide on making sure our fellow human beings are happy, we would have to make sure that the people we choose to make happy are following the same ideal. In other words, in the situation where you choose between