Utilitarianism And The Pursuit Of Happiness

What if the right action doesn't benefit our interests in any way? Another objection against Mill's reply says that utilitarianism is too demanding because we should maximize overall happiness regardless of our interests. Mill replies to this saying that unless it's a great contribution to society, our self interests are weighted more. So only in very rare cases would we have to give up our self interests to make the choice right. I also agree with this reply because our self interests should definitely weigh more than the happiness of a few people, after all as humans we are very selfish in general. However if it is on a large-scale such as helping a big community in a great way without taking a lot of time, we need to consider what we are giving up and put our interests aside in order to contribute for the greater good as long as it is not too demanding.

Utilitarianism has been recognized as a convincing method regarding normative ethics, utilitarianism wasn’t fully expressed until the 19th century. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, acknowledged the good with pleasure. Both of the philosophers believed we ought to make the most of the good, everyone's happiness is the same no matter what type of happiness it is. When one fulfills their good, it doesn’t mean one’s individual good doesn’t count more when compared to someone else’s good.

Classical utilitarianism, the theory as described by 17th century philosopher John Stuart Mill, states that the only thing that matters is that are the happiness and unhappiness that is created as a consequence of an action; those actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences, everything else is irrelevant. The theory also states that each person’s happiness is equally important. According to Mill, the right actions are actions that produce the greatest possible balance of happiness over unhappiness. Although the theory of utilitarianism is widely accepted, it is not without some very critical and persuasive objections. I will examine and analyze the “doctrine of swine” and “lack of time” objections

I found that the idea of utilitarianism was quite interesting. I did not agree with Mills when he stated that actions that are right promote happiness, while actions that are wrong result in the reverse of happiness. I did agree with is that ones goal in life is to pursue happiness. While Mill brought up God in his agree it also made sense that the idea of utilitarianism is a religious and non-religious thing. Mills also brought up when people do actions that benefit others and the greater good instead of themselves. However, I did not agree to them idea that people are too prideful and are not willing to compromise happiness in order for the greater good. An example of this was when the Government wanted Apple to unlock an Iphone for a terrorist

“Utilitarianism is a simple, bold, and direct ethical theory. It takes happiness as its standard and uses it to assess the morality of the actions we perform.” (Sanchez 2). The basic principle of Utilitarianism theory of Ethics articulates that an action is right if and only if that action inclines to promotes net happiness. Furthermore, utilitarianism assert that multiple actions are considered right if and only if every action brings about parallel amount of happiness compare to other action that could have been executed. Laying away the likelihood of actions only producing happiness, “the utilitarian principle instructs us to perform the action that brings about the greatest net happiness. The “net” happiness of an action is simply the happiness it produces minus any unhappiness it causes” (Sanchez 3). Therefore, utilitarianism is not only concerned with the positive consequences of the actions, but utilitarianism is more interest in the overall consequences of the actions. Consequently, utilitarianism maintains that if the effect of an action does not encourage happiness, then that action is regarded to be wrong. Furthermore, the utilitarian theory states that the actions, which may have immediate positive outcome, could transpire harm to others or reciprocate any unintentional consequence. Therefore, in any given situation, a person should determine to take an action by taking an account of the long-term consequence of that action. For instance, deceiving another person may seem a

According to the utilitarians, we should act upon the action that brings the highest overall level of utility. In other words, there are consequences in all of our actions, and those consequences can affect both ourselves and others around us. For Jeremy Bentham, founder of the utilitarianist ideology, everybody counted for one, and therefore, every single individual's feelings were to be seen as equal. As equalitarian and impartial as this ethical approach is, Bentham believes that humans have an egoistical rather than an altruistic nature because "we are guided by pleasure and pain in everything we do" (Gosselin, slide 11). Even in moments where we are performing actions we dislike, Bentham believes that we are trying to maximize pleasure and minimize pain so that in the long run, we

According to utilitarianism, the action can be considered as being morally right if their actions would result in more good results over bad ones to the people affected by their actions. Utilitarianism states that before engaging into any action there is need to access the consequences of that act on the people affected. If it consequences has more advantages as compared to its alternative, then the action should be performed. When we apply this principle in this situation of applicants, then their action was immoral since it resulted in negative consequences which affected many people parents, other applicants, the administration, student’s body. Although their action was going to solve their anxiety, the results were bad and brought suffering

Utilitarianism is a doctrine that revolves around two concepts: happiness and consequentialism. It follows the “Greatest Happiness Principle” which is, “The creed which accepts as the foundation 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” (Mill 239). Utilitarianists’ most vast idea is creating the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and to end pain and suffering with this principle by using Utilitarian Calculus. In Utilitarian Calculus, one would analyze the situation and as long as the action has a greater positive effect (more happiness) overall than a negative effect (pain and suffering) then the act is moral. Singer had many arguments when it comes to animal rights and speciesism.

Earlier on in his “General Remarks” he gives an explanation of the Greatest Happiness Principle, “…men’s sentiments, both of favour and of aversion, are greatly influenced by what they suppose to be the effect of things upon their happiness.” This can be interpreted to mean that all human actions are purely done in an effort to attain happiness, or at least done in order to avoid the reverse of happiness. He goes to great lengths to establish a clear and precise explanation of happiness. It is important to note that happiness and pleasure at times overlap, but are not one in the same. This key distinction was the hamartia for Bentham that gave critics the ability to question the validity of utilitarianism as a moral ideology. Under Mill’s interpretation, pleasure is a quality attainable by any being (he uses the example of swine). While a pig can feel pleasure from rolling in the mud, its

In my view utilitarianism gives the well-being of other human beings in the society an upper hand. Doing the right thing is considered morally upright despite the motive behind the action. Actions that increase the quantity and quality of happiness in an individual while taking away pain are morally upright. In this case, I will argue that helping a drowning person is morally upright as pain is removed from the individual and happiness level up raised. Increasing the level of happiness in an individual eventually elevates the level of good actions in the society that is in line with utilitarianism ethics code. In this regard, I believe mutual responsibility has to be engraved in each for the society to benefit from the overall morally upright

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

Utilitarianism can be defined as a moral theory that is generally considered to have been founded by Jeremy Bentham who was a 19th century English philosopher and social reformer whom the panopticon is also attributed to. At the center of utilitarianism is happiness, which is in fact the ultimate goal of all human beings. To be happy and promote happiness. According to classical utilitarianism, when a person wants to act in an ethical way, he or she should strive to bring about the greatest possible amount of happiness for the greatest possible amount of people. This idea is known the greatest happiness principle. A similar idea is that a person should always strive, if incapable of producing happiness, to reduce unhappiness. These ideas

Jeremy Bentham decided if things were ethical by doing actions that will result in the greatest happiness, or pleasure, for the greatest number of people or community. Bentham felt that pain and pleasure are what governs how people act and also how people should act. He also would measure pleasure and pain by using a hedonistic calculus system, meaning some actions and circumstances could be measured, such as certainty, extent, and duration. And these factors could be measured by the amount of pain and pleasure that would be caused due to them, the greatest number of people that would be effected and for how long, and so this would then decide what action would be the best ethical decision to choose for the greater good

Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism, however fair it may seem, has many issues. Firstly, as it relies simply on consequences, it ignores original intentions. Unlike Kant, who states that intentions are important, even if it does not go as planned, Bentham believes that if the consequences are bad, the act is immoral. However, it can be argued that intentions are just as important as consequences.

Jeremy Bentham was an English philosophy (1748-1632) who challenged the idea of the Social Contract theory, which states that the people create a social contract to agree to form of government. Bentham opposed the idea of natural rights and followed the idea of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the idea that political and moral decision should not be based on natural rights, but based on which choice produces the “greatest good for the greatest number”. For an example, this principle explains whether a student should start a food fight or not. The food fight could cause injuries (i.e someone slipping on food), property damage, and extra work for the people who must clean it up. Starting the food fight may produce good for some people, but