In this paper, I would explain why it is wrong to lie to a person in a utilitarian’s point of view. One problem for this view is that it simply only looks at the amount of happiness of individuals as a group. It does not address the quantity of happiness each person would have in a certain situation. Moreover, I will also state how Mill would reply to this objection by stating that how happy a person is does not equate to the significance of how many people would be happy in response to a certain event.
First of all, utilitarianism is a theory wherein an action is right if it tends to promote happiness at the end of the day, and that an action is wrong if it tends to produce the opposite of happiness. This theory that was ‘produced’ by Jeremy
…show more content…
For instance, is the Greatest Happiness Principle referring to a result wherein a lot of people would be happy? Or is it referring to how happy an individual, or a group would be? To clarify, this principle would be a problem in a situation where a young girl, Clara, and her two other brothers, James and Josh, were fighting about whether or not they should keep their dog. If they do not keep the dog, James and Josh would both be happy since they would not have to help Clara clean up the dog’s mess. However, if they do keep the dog, James and Josh would be sad but Clara would be really happy for the next 15 years, till the dog dies, because she loves the dog very much. In this situation, getting rid of the dog would cause more people to be happy. However, James and Josh’s sadness could not compare to the sadness that it would cause Clara since losing a best friend hurts a lot more than being forced to help your little sister to clean up a little mess. It would not also compare to the huge amount of happiness that Clara would be experiencing for the next 15 years if they do keep the dog. So if I was a utilitarian, I’d pick the action that would lead to great happiness. But in this situation, would getting rid of the dog cause more happiness or much less, considering the amount of happiness that Clara would have to experience if they do keep the dog? In this occurrence, if I …show more content…
I imagine him stating that the amount of happiness a single individual experiences would not compare to the amount of people that would be experiencing even a little bit of happiness. This, I think would happen because of a thing I call the ‘ripple effect’. This phenomenon occurs in our lives more often than we notice it. For instance, in this example, I might decide that Clara’s happiness would be a lot greater than James and Josh’ happiness. However, Mill might decide otherwise; because making James and Josh happy would, in return, make more people happier. To demonstrate, if two people are even a little bit happy, there would be a really high probability that they would be treating other people nicely. In effect, more people would be happy as well, fulfilling the greatest happiness principle. However, compared to one happy person, that single individual alone would not make as much happy people as much as the two individuals would. Therefore, it would seem that getting rid of the dog would result into the greater
Utilitarianism is the ethical belief that the happiness of the greatest number of people is the greatest good. Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mill are two philosophers that were leading advocates for the utilitarianism that we study today. In order to understand the basis of utilitarianism, one must know what happiness is. John Stuart Mill defines happiness as the intended pleasure and absence of pain while unhappiness is pain and the privation of pleasure. Utilitarians feel the moral obligation to maximize pleasure for not only themselves, but for as many people as possible. All actions can be determined as right or wrong based on if they produce the maximum amount of happiness. The utilitarian belief that all actions can be determined as right or wrong based only on their repercussions connects utilitarianism to consequentialism. Consequentialism is the belief that an action can be determined morally right or wrong based on its consequences. Just like any other belief system, utilitarianism faces immense amount of praise and criticism.
According to Mill’s arguments and views on happiness, it is convincing that happiness is good: that each individual’s happiness is a beneficial thing to them. As well as, the proof of happiness is when people actually desire it and feel like they have never desired anything else (44). Mill defines happiness as intended pleasure and freedom from pain. Utilitarianism and happiness are linked to each other because the morality of a human action should do the right thing that is useful or beneficial to the society, which happiness is involved. For example, a person sees an elderly struggling carrying the grocery bags, and then the person comes over and helps. The outcome makes both of the people feel happy and it constitutes the society a better place. When people want to break away from unhappy people will take other people’s happiness away to make them happy.
Utilitarianism’s is based on a basic moral principle of utility. Utility in this context could be defined is a form of “happiness”. A textbook definition of utilitarianism is,
Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics supporting the idea that the morally correct course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing totally benefit and minimizing suffering. By ‘utility’ in this sense we mean ‘happiness’ or ‘pleasure, or similar. Although there are many varieties,
She argues that many people who study utilitarianism find that calculating the amount of happiness is too difficult and complex. Especially considering that to calculate it properly one must look at every little detail and aspects of the scenario and judge what they believe is an appropriate score. Then comes the issue of choosing whose arguments to consider, Mill’s or Bentham’s. Another common criticism is the utilitarianism never gives us the chance to take into account our personal happiness or the ones of our best friends. Which, in a way is good because it removes all possibility of favoritism or egoism.
Happiness could be seen as the goal for humanity, which is what causes the world to move forward. In each person’s unique way, they would be attempting to reach happiness, and this would cause humanity to progress. However, each person cannot know what the true form of happiness really is, and can only strive to what they think to be the ultimate idea of happiness. Different people would go about attempting to be happy in different ways, and some of these ways would be more successful than others. A person who was raised in a family with certain morals and beliefs may experience happiness by following strict rules set by the family, while another may find happiness by breaking those same rules. In the interpretation for the perfect happiness, there is diversity as to how the happiness could be achieved.
Immanuel Kant refers to happiness as contentment (Kant, ) whereas John Stuart Mill refers to it as the pursuit of pleasure and the absence of pain (Mill, p.7). Kant does not base his ethics on happiness. Instead, he argues that morality is based on our duty as a human (Kant, ). To do what is right for Kant is to do what is instinctually moral without giving thought to the overall happiness. On the other hand, Mill does in fact use happiness as the bases for his ethics. He proposes that actions are right if they promote overall happiness and wrong if they promote the opposite of happiness (Mill, ). In this paper, it will be argued that Mill 's views on happiness are more reasonable than those of Kant 's because happiness should be the base for ethics.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that judges an action on its outcomes and aims to maximize happiness. This means finding the action that generates the “greatest good for the greatest number”.
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.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, as explained by the philosopher Mill. Given several choices, a utilitarian would pick the morally correct choice by using the Greatest Happiness Principle (487). By looking at whether the consequences of an action will produce the greater happiness for the greater number of people than another action would, one can
Utilitarianism can be generally defined as a way of thinking where one chooses an action based on the amount of happiness that it would produce. In the book Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, by Barbara MacKinnon and Andrew Fiala, the authors state “Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism,” and that “John Stuart Mill explained it as ‘actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.’” (MacKinnon 95). This means that utilitarianism focuses on result of an action based on happiness and that decisions can be taken made by looking at possible outcomes of that decision. What Mill stated would be defined as “ the principle of utility or the greatest happiness principle.”( MacKinnon, 95). This principle is one in which could be
Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.
Before I discuss the theory of utilitarianism, it is imperative to explain and understand what it is. Utilitarianism is a moral theory, or a doctrine explaining why certain actions are right or wrong. It is the idea that moral
The theory of Utilitarianism states that actions should be judged as right or wrong depending on whether they cause more happiness or unhappiness. It weighs the rightness and wrongness of an action based on consequences of that action.
The idea of Utilitarianism, and the greatest happiness principle were developed by philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century, and even has lineage back to Epictetus, utilitarianism coincides with the greatest happiness principle. The idea is that you should act in a way that would generate the majority of overall happiness, and focus on the consequences of your actions rather than the action itself (Driver, 2009), this goes along perfectly with the definition to be wise of maximizing benefit, because being wise means maximizing benefit. Furthermore, this means that good actions have good consequences, regardless of the intention of the action. This way, we can ensure that we ensure that we, as a society and individuals, make as many people as happy as possible, and through knowing that you are promoting happiness for others, you yourself can find happiness through that. Therefore, because we as sentient beings, do what we do as we think it will promote our happiness, thinking and acting like a utilitarian will ensure that our actions