Mill Equal Opportunity

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.

When we hear the word “America” we often think of independence, opportunity, and success. Equal opportunity can be defined as every individual granted a fair chance and should be treated the same. The opportunity should overlook religion, race, sex, ethnicity, etc. For the last couple of weeks, we’ve been studying the nature of inequality and how it’s had a negative impact on society. From the outside looking in, it seems as if America is the land of equal opportunity, however, that is not accurate. The United States is not the land of equal opportunity. People of different races have to fight daily for fair opportunities. Inequality affects the ability of people who wants to improve the standards of their lives and contribution to society.

I don't believe so. I must begin my argument with two definitions and one assumption. First, Rule Utilitarianism states that right action is defined by whether or not a given action is an instance of a moral rule that tends to maximize utility. Second, Act Utilitarianism states that right action is defined by whether or not a given action maximizes utility. Finally, the Utilitarian Principle holds that right actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. I hope that my assumption will be granted as it is taken verbatim from the text. With these notions as a starting point I believe that I can now show Mill to be an

Mill was raised, and remained throughout his life, a staunch utilitarian . As a utilitarian, he had a complete belief that all decisions should be determined by that which caused the greatest happiness . Mill

Through utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill explained that the most moral action is the one that provides the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Some say this encouraged selfishness and he invited

Mill claims that morals find their root in Utility, otherwise called the Greatest Happiness Principle.(513) The essence of this is that actions are right in proportion to how much happiness results from them and wrong in proportion to how much they cause the reverse of it.(513) In defending this, he claims that

Mill begins his final chapter by trying to cover the meaning of justice, by coming up with a list of things that are frequently classified as just or unjust. He examined what justice is and says that it is the concept of the moral rights of an individual. He talks about so many solid examples of injustice. Firstly, it is unjust to deprive one of his legal rights, violating one’s moral rights, everyone should receive what the deserve whether good or bad, break contracts and be partial. Mill differentiated other outlines of morality from justice through the idea of a perfect duty. Perfect duties, are what one must always fulfil and have not choice over it, and imperfect duty is we have a choice and just decide to help someone on our own, e.g

Explain in your own words the logic of Mill’s argument, and critically discuss whether happiness should be the criterion of morality.

Before Mill could analyse the concepts of Utilitarianism his first action was to break down any barriers that caused people to turn away from its insights. All actions exist as a means to promote a particular end; thus an action may only be deemed right or wrong based on the desired outcome of said action. If the sought out ends cause suffering towards others, the actions will be considered to have been bad; just the same as if an end causes happiness, the actions that caused this result will be deemed as good. Therefore, having a standard as to how humans can be judged between good and bad is necessary. Mill argues that “particular truth precedes general theory” (p. 2), unlike the rules of applicable sciences we know of, ethics demands ‘general laws’ in order for

Mill's principle of utility seeks for the logical rationality of ethics through the consequences of actions as the consideration determining their morality, therefore the possession of happiness as opposed to the avoidance of pain. Utilitarianism might be an instance of a more general theory of right consequentialism, which supports that right and wrong can only, be reviewed by the kindness of consequences. This common kind of theory can be easily understood by considering the form of consequentialism. Consequentialism states that an act is right if, of those accessible to the agent at the time, it would produce the most overall value in the end. Utilitarian

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?’.

John Stuart Mill, in his Utilitarianism, turns morality into a practical problem. His moral theory is designed to help one evaluate his moral principles and senisibilites and be able to ajudicate conflictions in moral conflicts. Mill postulates that actions are right so far as they tend to promote happiness and minimize pain. This theory manifests itself as an impartial promotion of happiness. Morally "right" actions are ones which promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number number of people and reduce pain. Utilitarian moral theories need to be coupled with theories of well-being, so that we can point to what is being maximized through the moral theory's operation. Mill's moral theory is

Continuing with this statement he believes that society and the individuals should take control over their own life. Throughout chapter 4 he is defending and giving us an outline of the situation when harming an individual than they should be punished for the action of harming others. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism, is the argument of thought and discussion and freedom of action. On chapter two he believes that freedom of thought and discussion will eventually bring the truth and the truth

The primary components of this reasoning are one's activities and their subsequent utility. A man is viewed as good when their activities have a tendency to advance utility of the overall population as per the Greatest Happiness Principle. Nonetheless, only an activity expanding utility does not as a matter of course infer an ethical activity. All together for the activity to be moral it must be the ideal decision in expanding utility and minimizing torment. Since it is hard to decide the prevalent of two inconceivably diverse results, Mill furnishes us with a framework to figure out which decision would have the higher quality. This framework has the best possible judges of the activities figure out which they incline toward. Whichever is

In regards to morality, Mill anchors its definition on the premises of the greatest happiness principle stated above. Unlike Aristotle who puts emphasis on the agent (the person themselves) in regards to acting morally, Mill is very indifferent and states that the character of the person and their motives do not matter only the consequence of those actions matter. For Mill, the morality of the action only depends on whether that action will produce pleasure for greatest number of people. As state before, he explains that pleasure leads to happiness, and happiness is the ultimate goal of each individual. However, morality is “the rules and precepts for human conduct,” and not simply the causes of human behavior. Desire may drive human actions, but that doesn’t mean that desire should propel human actions. Morality is the ideal, not the reality.