John Stuart Mill Act Utilitarianism

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

In John Stuart Mill’s work Utilitarianism, Mill is trying to provide proof for his moral theory utilitarianism and disprove all the objections against it. Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (Ch. II, page 7). He calls this the “greatest happiness principle. Mill says, “No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except the fact that each person desires his own happiness, so far as he thinks it is attainable. But this is a fact; so we have not only all the proof that could be possibly demanded, that happiness is a good; that each person’s happiness is a good to that

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.

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

I think Mill would have ran into difficultly explaining duty. I believe the main problem with duty for utilitarianism is that people can potentially ignore or go against the other's happiness because of their duty. For example, a bank main duty is to manage its money and to make money from people through investments. A poor person is not a good investment, so the bank will ignore them for a better investment like a rich person. By doing this, the bank is potentially destroying the poor person chance that happiness because of its

John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher that believed in utilitarianism. Per utilitarianism, the source of moral duty comes from the consequences of an action. Mill is known for his Greatest Happiness Principle, which says actions are right when they promote the “greatest happiness” to the greatest number of people. Whether Mill’s statement is right or wrong is debatable. In the general sense, his statement seems logical. Doing what will make a greater number of people happy is what we should do. In order to determine what is good, a person must weigh the outcome of his or her actions. What may please the most people seem logical, but has issues associated. It can lead to overlooking a person’s individual right and interferes with equality.

    John Stuart Mill has contributed to many theories and methodologies in this paper I will discuss a few. The first being utilitarianism which was produced in 1861, Mill was a true utilitarian. Utilitarianism says that the result of an act is the real measure of whether it was good or bad. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism is a theory based on the principle that, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrongs as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (“Utilitarianism”, 2017 ).  There are two types of utilitarianism the first one deriving from Jeremy Bentham(1748-1832), and Bentham is also a philosopher who Mill actually studied under. And Bentham’s utilitarianism is ‘act’ and act is an action is right if and only it produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest balance of pleasure. An example of Bentham's theory would be you attempting to help an elderly man

Mill writes of utilitarianism in the eponymous work Utilitarianism. According to his work utilitarianism is a means of deciding the moral value of actions. Mill’s theory takes a consequentialist view of actions, saying that the moral worth of an action is decided by the outcome, or consequence. This decision of moral worth is determined by whether the outcome maximizes happiness and minimizes the reverse of happiness. Mill writes that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Happiness is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain according to Mill, and the action must be considered for the outcome it brings to the most people. This happiness, or pleasure and lack of pain,

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.