Utilitarian Perspective On Feminism

The pursuit of pleasure has also been condemned by critics as being little more than the promotion of one’s own interests, with no regard to the happiness of others. Mill disputes this as being narrow-minded, clarifying that the pleasure principle which forms the foundation for utilitarianism, “what is right in conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned” (Mill 16). With this acknowledgment, however, comes the criticism that people cannot possibly be motivated by something as satisfying the collective good of society. Mill countered this by pointing out, “The utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others” (Mill 16). To the objection that pleasure is an acceptable end is contrary to Christian principles because it is “godless,” Mill states, “If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other” (Mill 21).

During the Age of Enlightenment in the late eighteenth century, Mary Wollstonecraft presented a radical essay, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, that shed light on the largest, underrepresented groups of the time, women. The essay voiced the inequalities women at the time faced and called upon Wollstonecraft’s audience to invoke a revolution for the rights of women. Through her writing, she presented a compelling argument that slowly allowed women to question their “place” in society and demand change to the British social order. While these changes did not happen quickly, her work sparked the feminist movements through its unique message and called upon women to demand equality through the Match Girls Strike and Women’s Suffrage

Mary Wollstonecraft’s famous book, Vindication of the Rights of Women, is “one of the earliest expressions of a feminist consciousness.” Wollstonecraft claims that women are upset mainly due to the fact that they are not receiving the education they deserve, and goes on to explain how women are notorious for being weak, and mentally unstable. She blames the education system for this since all the books are written by men, and they claim that women are barley humans and are treated as another species. She questions the eligibility of men to claim they are better than women. A useful education, in her opinion, is one that teaches students how to be strong and independent. Her directed audience is anyone who is unsure of the true definition and meaning of feminism. Wollstonecraft believes that all humans are capable of the same intelligence, no matter the gender. Her overall idea is that every individual, both male and female, deserve equality.

Many people believe that marriage is important in this day and age, but it holds little significance compared to the importance of marriage in the Victorian era. In the Victorian era women were to get married to a man of the same or a better social status, be good wives, and be a mother to her husband's children. Very few marriages started with love, but a woman's life is not complete without being married. Over time, the role of married women has evolved a great deal and they now have rights and privileges. John Stuart Mill was one of the great thinkers of the Victorian era, and his essay The Subjection of Women tells how few privileges women had and that they were slaves to their husbands. He also says that women are their own people and

She was a mother, a moral and political philosopher, a writer, and a feminist. Mary Wollstonecraft was the ideal image of what represented the push towards modern feminism. Some may even consider her as the founding mother of modern feminism itself. Much of Wollstonecraft’s literature is influenced by her own life experiences. In 1785, Wollstonecraft took on an employment opportunity as a governess. While spending most of her time there, she had a moment of epiphany where she realized that she was not suited for domestic work. Soon after, she returned to London and became a translator and wrote for a well-known publisher and discovered her love of writing. Eventually, years later she was then able to publish her most notable work, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is still a very popular book which can be seen as a guide to becoming a better citizen and understanding feminism in a critical context. This essay will argue that Mary Wollstonecraft is still relevant to the feminist cause today as her views portrayed in her book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman are still relatable to many of the feminist issues that currently exist around the world. This essay will do so by comparing how her views in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman can still be used as guiding principles to tackle feminist matters.

Inequality is a plague we’ve attempted to cure for centuries with some success only to come to the realization that another problem has risen. Mary Wollstonecraft, a social and political activist for women’s rights, addressed a letter to a former bishop to present a case of equality in relation to France’s government and societal restrictions imposed on women. As a sequel to her previous piece, “A Vindication of The rights of Women”, Wollstonecraft took the liberty to propose multiple reasons as to why women’s rights are essential to the well-being of not only men, but also as necessary for society to function properly. She uses her own independence as a basis of her argument without concerning herself to much by mostly discussing others possible advantages derived from allowing women to be educated. Wollstonecraft’s purpose was to convince those who considered educating women unnecessary by setting examples that affect men negatively; comparatively our society has either carried these methods or created new ones to deal with inequality.

“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

The past history of subjection towards women by accounts of nature is one of the reasons that women are still oppressed today. John Stuart Mill in his writing

For utilitarian philosophers, happiness is the supreme value of life. John Stuart 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. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and privation of pleasure” (Mill, Utilitarianism). This meaning that utilitarianism is determined by the calculation of happiness, in which actions are deemed to be good if they tend to produce pleasure, a form of happiness. On the contrary, they are evil if they tend to promote pain. Not only does Mill regard to the end product of happiness in actions, but also considers the motives of such actions. In his argument, Mill defends the idea that happiness as the underlying basis of morality, and that people desire nothing but happiness.

Mary Wollstonecraft, who was born during the age of enlightenment in the 18th century, is one of the most prominent feminists in women’s history. Her book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman led her to become one of the first feminists, advocating for the rights of women. Born in a time where women’s education was neither prominent nor important, Wollstonecraft was raised with very little education. However, events in her life influenced her to begin writing, such as the way her father, Edward John Wollstonecraft treated her mother, “into a state of wearied servitude” (Kries,Steven)1. In 1792, she published Vindication on the Rights of Woman, which is one of the most prominent feminist pieces to date. This book is considered a reply to

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?’.

As one of the earliest feminist writers, Mary Wollstonecraft faced a daunting audience of critics ready to dispel her cry for the rights of women. Her powerful argument calling for equality in a society dominated by men was strong, and her ideas withstood a lot of criticism to become one of the most important feminist texts. Her argument was simple and illustrates a solution to the inequality in society. The foundation of this argument is the idea of education and how independent thought is necessary to live a virtuous and moral life. In the present state of society, women are seen as inferior to men and held in a state of ignorance. The worst effect of this

Throughout history, women were “conditioned” to believe that it was their duty to be obedient to men. That it was their “nature to live for others….and to have no life but their [men’s] affections” (Mill, 1995, pg.16). Thus, it seemed natural that women were to be subservient to the needs of the men in their lives. They gave up their lives in order to serve and be accepted by them. Mill, however, claims that this was not the case. The subjection of women was not brought upon by natural development, but rather, through customary power relationships that went on to become institutionalized in the same way that slavery was.