The Second Chapter Of Utilitarianism, By John Stuart Mill

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.

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

In chapters two and three of Mill’s Utilitarianism writings he chose to discuss Utilitarianism’s meaning and principles of Utility. As for the definitions of utilitarianism, Mill described it as, “The Greatest Happiness Principle” (Mill 10). Furthermore, utilitarianism seeks to promote the most happiness for the greater good (Mill 10). In accordance to that, actions are considered good actions if they promote happiness (Mill 10). As Mill describes the definition of Utilitarianism, he also discusses the definition of happiness. Mill describes happiness as, “Intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Mill 10). In other words, Mill believes that if someone is performing an

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.

Mill’s Utilitarianism varies from the most general form of utilitarianism, which claims that one should assess persons, actions, and institutions by how well they promote humans’ happiness. Mill branches off of this basic explanation by interpreting the misconceptions of utilitarianism into utility. This utility is something in opposition to pleasure. In order words, mill utilitarianism utility is the greatest happiness principle.

John Stuart Mill establishes a foundation of utilitarianism to justify our actions regarding morality. Our actions; good or bad, tend to promote human happiness or unhappiness. When referring to good actions, for example, they tend to be rewarded with pleasures. When one does a good deed that person feels positive about themselves and therefore they are experiencing pleasure.

One of the attacks on Utilitarianism is that it is impossible to obtain happiness, Mill agrees but only if you are arguing that a life of happiness is one of continuously high pleasure. Mill realistically says that happiness often only lasts for moments - with a few exceptions. Utilitarianism is focused on obtaining a life with few pains in-between many moments of various pleasure - a happy life, not an unobtainable perfect life.

For Mill utilitarianism is a theory that is based on the belief that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” also known as the “greatest happiness principle. As “happiness is the sole basis of morality; people rarely want anything but happiness”. Mill believes people’s achievement of goals and ends – virtuous living should be considered a part of the individual’s happiness. Mill defines happiness as pleasure without pain as pleasure can vary in quality and quantity. Mill writes in Utilitarianism, happiness is: “not a life of rapture, but moments of such, in an existence made up of few and transitory pains, many and various pleasures, with a decided predominance of the active over the passive, and having as the foundation of the whole not to expect more from life than it is capable of bestowing.” Mill thought ethics should focus instead on quality of pleasure rather than quantity of pleasure. He divides the pleasures into two categories, that is, higher and lower. Hence, Mill utilitarianism was his differentiation between higher intellectual pleasures and lower bodily pleasures Mill argues that higher pleasures hold actual value; the higher pleasures are more appeasing to one’s feelings. He draws a

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 doctrine explains that there is no higher purpose in life than that of the pursuit of carnal pleasures. Notably, James Mill’s believed anti-Utilitarians should not judge Utilitarians based on this doctrine. According to Mill’s, the pleasure of human beings and pigs, as well as other animals, varies on diverse levels and human beings are capable of enduring pleasures that far exceed those of pigs. Moreover, Mill’s points out that the doctrine fails to mention specific pleasures, which only human beings have, such as intellectual or moral pleasures, nor any other form of pertinent human characteristics. After all, humans’ mental pleasures far exceed the mindset of swine. Due to circumstances, “utilitarianism does not recommend

Utilitarianism is a theory in standardizing ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility. According to Mill, a lot of people misunderstand utilitarianism by thinking that utility is an obstruction to pleasure. Utility, also known as the Greatest Happiness Principle, is actually defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain. This principle is described as “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”

The utilitarianism ethical theory, according to John Stuart Mill, states that “happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being desirable as a means to that end” (Mill 35). Although this ethical theory seems logical on its surface, a closer examination of its key components paints a different picture. Because of its flawed definition of “happiness” and mischaracterization of human nature, one should be discouraged from using the utilitarian ethical theory to make moral decisions. The first significant flaw in the utilitarianism ethical theory is the way in which human “happiness” is defined. When defining the meaning of happiness, Mill suggests “that each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of

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.

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?’.

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.