The Theory Of Justice Through The Principles Of Utility

Along with other noted philosophers, John Stuart Mill developed the nineteenth century philosophy known as Utilitarianism - the contention that man should judge everything in life based upon its ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. While Bentham, in particular, is acknowledged as the philosophy’s founder, it was Mill who justified the axiom through reason. He maintained that because human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, they are not merely satisfied with physical pleasures; humans strive to achieve pleasures of the mind as well. Once man has ascended to this high intellectual level, he desires to stay there, never descending to the lower level of

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.

Hook. Both John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer approach 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 on the importance of selflessness, the idea that we can end human suffering, and the significance of consequences. However, their views conflict concerning the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism since Singer accurately recognizes the discrepancy between a life of absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also wrestles with the intricate concept of motive.

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.

In defining utilitarianism, J.S. Mill counters the popular belief that this theory only deals with the pleasure yielded by actions of individuals by stating that, "the theory of utility... [is] not something to be

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.

John Stuart Mill is considered one of the most influential philosophers of the nineteenth century. In the scholarly journal, “John Stuart Mill”, Christopher Macleod insights that, “He was a naturalist, a utilitarian, and a liberal, whose work explores the consequences of a thoroughgoing empiricist outlook” (1). One of the many things that he is widely known for is his contributions and insights of the wide spread physiological following of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism in a nutshell, is the ethical philosophy in which the needs of the highest number of people in a society over the needs of the lowest number of people is considered the ultimate choice. Mill’s interpretation of utilitarianism is that everything that is desirable is desired

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

Mill's celebrated 1859 treatise On Liberty is a foundation to virtually unlimited liberty of speech, religious belief, opinion, and expression. Mill famously makes the case that individuals should enjoy perfect liberty to act so long as their actions do not pose a direct and proximate harm to others. On utilitarianism, Mill’s focus was on consequences of actions and not on rights or ethical sentiments. Moreover Mill’s book on principles of political economy served as the dominant text book in economics for many decades. Mill extols individuality and defends a vision of history in which the eccentric ideas of one age fuel moral development and material progress. Academics, agree that although Mill’s position drifts through successive editions, the monumental Principles of Political Economy (1848) stands as one of the most influential 19th-century affirmations of laissez-faire, free trade, and economic liberalization. However, Mill’s act utilitarianism principle has been greatly criticized by various academics and proponents of rule utilitarianism for it approves of actions that are clearly wrong, undermines trust among people and is too demanding because it requires people to make excessive levels of

Joh Stuart Mill was a strong proponent, and indeed considered to be the father of, Utilitarianism. This philosophical theory is defined as a form of moral idealism which sets the moral standard of an action based off the greatest potential for harm or happiness that said action could produce. Essentially, Utilitarianism determines whether or not the action will create a significant amount of pleasure and improve quality of life the greatest number of people. Mill states in Utilitarianism, “…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. By happiness is

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.

Mill, on the Utilitarianism, thinks that the rights need to be protected, not only because the law protects the legal rights, but also because those promote the general utility. Without the rights, Mill argues, there would be neither legal nor moral protection of one from the surrounding world; in other words, the human beings need either legal or moral protection of the rights for an overall convenience and security. For example, the right and a sense of justice that is attached to the right give a person a reason to seek penalty of the ones that harmed him/her; in conjunction with the existing legal system, the individual who has been wronged can seek the punishment (Mill, 129) and inflict pain upon the individual who ‘brought injustice’ to oneself. (In addition, through the protection of the rights, one can achieve the “animal desire (Mill, 36)”, which may also add to the utility/pleasure.) As a result, the government, or the legal

John Stuart Mill’s theory in Utilitarianism states that the goodness of the society is reflected by the utility social welfare where by input is produced by individuals of the society. It is benefited by the sum of individual utilities combined. The majority consequently chooses what will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Justice for Mill is factored, driven by what individuals in society require most. Mill believed that the origin of the sense of justice must be sought in two sentiments other than utility: the impulse of self-defense and feelings of sympathy. The individual would determine justice based on their ideals of what will benefit the whole rather than themselves and others. Individuals are more likely to believe that the need for self-defense and protection are more important than conflict and that sympathy from themselves or towards others will drive the individual to act in a way that would be most beneficial.

In Utilitarianism, Mill states the problem as humans’ lack of knowledge on what is right and wrong. He recognizes that humans tend to act unjustly and blames the lack of education on morality as the primary issue. He argues to fix this problem…