Philosophy Of John Stuart Mill

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.

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

“Genuine happiness lies in action that leads to virtue, since this alone provides true value and not just amusement.” (Aristotle)

In this paper I am going to attempt to answer a question utilizing a little help from one of two philosophers. First of all the question I will be answering is “Should the moral value of an action be determined by the intentions/character that inspire the action, or the consequences that result from the action?” Second, the philosophers I am going to discuss throughout this paper are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Now before I tell you my answer to this question I am going to explain these who these two philosophers are and what their viewpoints on ethics are.

Some may believe that the Greatest Utility Principle may be too high of a standard. This principle focuses on the idea of happiness. The Greatest Utility Principle demands that we ought to do the greatest good for the greatest number. In some instances, this is possible. However, in other instances it seems like it is an unreal expectation. Overall, the Greatest Utility Principles seems to be too high of a standard. For example, a murder on the NU campus could seem morally valid.

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.

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.

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

Majorities tend to prevent any opportunity that a minority group might have to gain support for a contradicting opinion. It is incredibly easy for members of society to abandon their beliefs in the midst of an overpowering majority. This process leads to an unequal society in which the rights of the people are restricted. In the essays, On Liberty and On Representative Government, written by John Stuart Mill, there is a concern for the "tyranny of the majority." He expresses his concern in, On Liberty, by supporting an increase in individual liberties. It is expressed again in, On Representative Government, by promoting a "true democracy." Mill proposes remedies for combating this "tyranny of the majority," and further discusses the

In Chapter 3, Mills writes about individuality as one of the elements of Well-Being. In this Chapter, he writes about originality. It is a valuable element in human affairs. Originality is always needed for people to discover new truths and point out what use to be truths is no longer a truth. This overall gives a better taste and sense in human life. Mill then writes about genius. Genius can only be freely in an atmosphere of freedom. Genius people are more individual than any other people. At the end of the Chapter, Mill writes about customs. He believes that most of the world has no history, because of the despotism of custom is complete. Countries in the Eastern World would fit into this category. In Chapter 4, Mill writes about the limits

John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant in my opinion was two great scholars with two great but very different views, on morality. John Stuart strong beliefs was named Utilitarianism. Simply stated Utilitarianism is the belief in doing what is good specifically for the greater good of the masses/everyone not just someone.

What is the space on a person’s forehead used for? Sure, it covers a part of the skull, but what other purpose does it really have? Some might claim that it could be employed as a space for advertisements and a quick way to make money. Michael J. Sandel, author of What Money Can’t Buy, would respond with his principle of coercion and how his research has shown that many people who use their forehead or other parts of their body as a money maker are forced to because they have a financial need created due to the effect markets and money have come to place on a person’s everyday life. However, John Stuart Mill, author of a brief essay titled On Liberty, would argue for that same individual's right to do as he or she pleases with his or her body

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.

John Locke (1632-1704) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are two important thinkers of liberty in modern political thought. They have revolutionized the idea of human freedom at their time and have influenced many political thinkers afterwards. Although their important book on human freedom, John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government (1689) and John Mill’s On Liberty (1859), are separated 170 years, some scholars thinks that they are belonging to the same conceptual tradition, English Liberalism. In this essay, I will elaborate John Locke and John Stuart Mill view on human freedom and try to find the difference between their concept of human freedom despite their similar liberal tradition background.

In his essay, Mill explores the two dimensions to liberty; individual and social. Carefully he analyzes the variance between the individual and social sphere through freedom of expression, more specifically, freedom of speech. Throughout the novel, he expresses that