Mill's Utilitarianism: An Analysis

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.

In this paper, I will explain John Stuart Mill’s moral theory of Utilitarianism, what I think it means, and how it works. I will also explain the Dax Cowart case, and determine if Dax’s choice to die was morally right or wrong. In order to fully understand the implications of Dax’s decision, and to accurately determine its affect on those his decision involves, I will break down and analyze the affect of Dax’s decision for Dax, his mother, Ada, and the Doctor. Lastly, I will gather prior evidence and form a valid conclusion of whether Dax’s choice was morally right or wrong.

1. In his discussion of the first formulation of the categorical imperative (Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law) Kant draws a distinction between perfect and imperfect duties. Introduce this formulation of the categorical imperative and discuss how we should make the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties.

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.

“The greatest good for the greatest number”; that is how the British philosopher John Stuart Mill famously summarized utilitarianism (Shafer-Landau, 2012b, p. 120). He is not only one of the greatest utilitarians, he is also a hedonist. Hence, he believed that this greatest good can be achieved by focussing all action on attaining the greatest amount of happiness. Mill describes utility as holding ‘that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness’ ((Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 17). He defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and unhappiness as pain and the privation of pleasure. Hence, Mill argues that only pleasure is intrinsically desirable and only misery intrinsically bad (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 120). All other desirable things are only desirable as means to promote pleasure or prevent pain (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 18). Therefore, in order to refute Mill’s utilitarianism, one would have to show that there is something other than pleasure or the freedom from pain that is intrinsically desirable. First, Robert Nozick’s attempt to disprove utilitarianism and hedonism in the shape of his ‘experience machine’ will be explained. Next, Mill’s arguments in favour of utilitarianism and hedonism will be recapitulated in an attempt to answer the central research question: why does Nozick’s experience

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.

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.

When you look at this dilemma from a Kantian viewpoint, he has a much different view on what makes something moral or have value. Kant does not place happiness as a need for an action to have worth, instead he bases if an action has moral worth on what your intentions were, not if it caused you pain or happiness.

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.

Explain why Mill distinguishes between higher and lower pleasures and assess whether he achieves his aim or not.

The definition of a happily fulfilled life is one that many individuals tend to disagree upon. I like to believe that the key to happiness is helping others be happy and that much like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill suggest, it is the happiness and wellbeing of a collectivity that will lead to the utmost pleasure in my life. Bentham and Mill’s views on Utilitarianism are ones to live by; their theory assures humanity will thrive as a whole, collective entity and not as a group of self-appraised individuals.

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

Although the display may cause an uproar within certain groups of people, if I was the art director I would continue to allow Millet’s piece to be shown. With utilitarianism being based on the principle of utility, promoting the most happiness for the greatest amount of people. Displaying this piece in the museum makes society happier as a whole. Many Americans come to view the photo every day while expressing their struggles as an American and how unhappy they are in America. As long as this image continues to make members in society happy as a whole, it will remain on display.

In Mill’s “Utilitarianism” he brings up a response that some have to the principles of Utilitarianism. The response is an objection to the Utilitarian moral theory. The objection that Mill recounts is that the people who do not agree with the Utilitarian moral theory say that Utilitarianism suggests that human beings are like swine. The argument for this idea is that Utilitarianism is about the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain. So with this in mind, those against the Utilitarianism say that then it would be morally right to live life as a satisfied pig which seems very absurd. An example of this concept would be with drug addicts. The objectors believe that Utilitarianism says that it is morally right to live life

While studying the theory of Utilitarianism, we have briefly discussed both Mill's and Bentham’s ideas of the perfect Utilitarian person would would be. They both have very common ground but both branch off into their own ideas. Bentham’s ideas include a scale of measuring how much happiness can be measured. He believes that this scale can be changed from person to person based on their interests and how much happiness can be incorporated from certain activities. Whereas, Mill believes that certain activities can not measure the amount of happiness such as the birth of a child, freedom, etc. I believe that both points are very valid and in general I feel that a true Unitarism would believe a little of both points. I feel that in most activities, an individual can “measure” how much happiness an individual would have and that scale fluctuates based on the individual. However, I feel that certain activities for some people cannot be measured. In general human beings need to have love, support and activities that they enjoy doing to be happy. So I