ipl-logo

Comparing Mill And Utilitarianism

889 Words4 Pages

Utilitarianism is stated as, “Utilitarianism is the theory that an action is right if and only if it results in at least as much well-being as any alternative action.” While Kant described Kant’s moral theory as, “ right actions have moral value only if they are done with a ‘good will’.” Both theories attempt to reach positive results that benefit others; however, Kant focuses on doing whatever it takes to help others and not use them. While utilitarianism is when someone may do whatever it takes to earn or increase happiness. It does not matter whatever the action is as long as there is a result of happiness Most utilitarians think that sometimes people are not to blame for performing actions that we generally think of as very …show more content…

However, I believe something like murdering someone is wrong no matter the circumstance. I think when it comes to someone performing good actions I believe that only good comes from the action then it is right and does not need to be interpreted further. In today’s society we typically only praise those for actions that we think of as right because they are. I am struggling to think of an example of where people should not earn praise for performing actions that we generally think of as right. What does Mill mean by “Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied?” While a pig may have a far less stressful life, it does not have the same substance of a human life. We may wish to live such a simple life; however, someone wanting to give up their human intelligence to live such a simple life is very …show more content…

Kant did not believe that not all consequences of certain actions always had a duty in the moral evaluation of a person’s actions. Kant would occasionally test others to see if people were acting morally like the principle of universalizability along with the principle of humanity. The principle of universalizability is that one should always treat a person to an end not just a mean. These two give conflicting advice, for example is good will actual good if it is not proven so? Then, with principle of humanity there is a drawback with being responsible for the actions one is not responsible

Show More
Related
1773 Words | 8 Pages

Singer’s utilitarianism requires a person’s moral responsibility for their actions be determined by the end consequences of that action, while O’Neill holds that responsibility of the individual is determined by the intention of their action. Under Singer, an individual must know the ends of their action will be beneficent to a famine situation. O’Neill believes that the fact that you are providing aid in itself is the action you should be judged through. Thus Kantian ethics sees one’s intentions as crucial to the morality of one’s acts, whereas utilitarian ethics sees only the results of one’s actions as

Read More
966 Words | 4 Pages

You have to act in a way that you are benefiting others without personally gaining anything from that action. Utilitarianism is also about calculating utils and disutils. When performing an action, you have to think of the people who are involved, and the possible outcome of the action in order to maximize utility. For each outcome, and person there will be utils and disutils created, then you calculate all of them and whichever outcome creates the most utils, that certain action has to be taken. In conclusion, utilitarianism is all about creating a positive outcome to any action taken, unlike Kantianism that doesn’t promote lying, even under certain

Read More
638 Words | 3 Pages

Theories that derived from these past two theories are the theory that develop over actions done by people and what they base their actions upon. A theory that can relate to this idea is “Utilitarianism” made by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill states that action are morally right and wrong depending on their effects that occur later. The only thing that really changes is the result of the that are produced from the choice. Utilitarianism is all based on cause and effect what we decide there will be an effect later on that will either right or wrong based on our decision. There was one philosopher who made clear that moral philosophy and every decision we made was for our happiness and was always no wrong choice.

Read More
1454 Words | 6 Pages

Kant proposes his theory to be strict and law binding, but he then suggested exceptions for certain rules, depending on certain circumstances. Kant provides us a rule that we must all follow, but later that rule can change. For example, we can use people as a means if we are honest about our intentions. Yet, the Formula of Humanity denies we should use people as a means at all because we are all rational. If he can propose to alter a rule like this, what is it to say he can also alter any rule just because he had said so?

Read More
667 Words | 3 Pages

1. Act utilitarianism is the belief that whenever we are deciding what to do we will choose the outcome that will result in the most utility. Their view the principle of utility as whatever will produce the best results. Act utilitarians also believe that it should be applied on a case-by-case bases. The right action is the one that produces the most utility as compared to any other options available.

Read More
707 Words | 3 Pages

Validity of a system is understood by fact. This can be best demonstrated through a mathematical example. If a math teacher and I are discussing an equation or a problem and they discern that the best way to solve this equation or problem is through a unfactual means of solving the problem, then they are wrong. Facts are what validate something and so John Stuart Mill uses facts to prove that Utilitarianism is a valid system. However, every idea will have a hole in it’s explanation and there are arguments in philosophy that can call for “what if” cases but in general Mill proves this validity in a simplistic manner.

Read More
1072 Words | 5 Pages

When looking at various forms of moral reasoning in government parties’ principles such as individual morality, fairness, and respect for persons are all subjective based on an individuals’ needs, wants, beliefs, etc. In other words, stances on what is moral will vary from person to person, and thus these particular principles become irrelevant in a national competition known as the Presidential Election. Thus I turn to Mill’s utilitarian principle. Mill’s principle states that any action must promote happiness in the total population to be ruled moral. Stated more simply: majority of the populace must be “happy” with federal decisions, and majority’s happiness is what determines morality.

Read More
1280 Words | 6 Pages

“He who thinks and thinks for himself, will always have a claim to thanks, it is no matter whether it be right or wrong, so as it be right or wrong, so as it be explicit. If it is right, it will serve as a guide to direct, if wrong, as a beacon to warn.” Jeremy Bentham believed that each individual should be able to speak their own opinions whether they were right or wrong as long as they didn’t harm anyone. Bentham was a British philosopher, who was believed to be the founder of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is based on the principle of having ethics towards the morally right action, which would benefit everyone’s life and well-being.

Read More
428 Words | 2 Pages

The Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are opposite of each other in many cases about morality. On the one hand, Utilitarianism claims that what makes people happiest and greatest number of people happy is morally right to do. On the other hand, Kantian ethics, first introduced by philosopher Kant, claims that we have some certain rules, like never lie even if it will benefit many people, and we should follow these rules no matter what the outcome is. Many philosophers have agreed on the case for Utilitarianism because it claims that we should calculate the outcome of our actions before doing them.

Read More
317 Words | 2 Pages

The principle of utilitarianism is to maximize utility, so the actions are useful and beneficial to generate the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Both Bentham and Mill support different type of utilitarianism. While Bentham supports the act utilitarianism where one focuses on the act in order to see if it promotes pleasure, Mill supports the rule utilitarianism because rules and laws can help promote happiness. For example, if a hungry person gets an apple from an apple tree, Bentham will say that is totally fine because he or she is maximize pleasure and minimize pain. However, Mill will say that is wrong because he or she does not follow the rules.

Read More
175 Words | 1 Pages

The most central aspect of Kant’s philosophy is that people are not a means to an end but an end in all of themselves. In simple words, Kant tells us to not use people. Kant believed that the maxims the rules of moral conduct should be universal. By universal Kant means that the maximum should apply at all times as we get further into Kent philosophy we will see they can't ideas are very strict and unwavering is therefore unsurprising that can reject utilitarianism can put great emphasis on the rights of individuals and stresses personal autonomy which is inconsistent with the application if you need to utilitarianism. Furthermore, the idea of the unwavering nature of Kantian Ethics is the idea that the right takes priority over the good.

Read More
866 Words | 4 Pages

Utilitarianism is different from Kantianism because it says that you can perform any action even if it provides some harm to others, but at the end it should provide maximum utility. But on the other end, Kantianism says that you need to treat everyone equal, no one less than the other. They both hold different views but they both are right in certain situations. Utilitarianism and Kantianism conflict in many situations. For example, you have a friend who’s pregnant, but she’s scared to tell her parents.

Read More
837 Words | 4 Pages

Utilitarianism is a normative moral theory based on consequentialism-its fundamental idea is that “do what produces the best consequence”. In more detail the theory dictates that actions are only right if they promote happiness and produce the greatest amount of happiness; “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 the privation of pleasure. ”(Mill 1863) http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm Utilitarianism states that pleasure and happiness are intrinsically valuable and that pain and suffering are intrinsically invaluable and that every action that has value should either promote happiness or impede suffering.

Read More
1564 Words | 7 Pages

John Stuart Mill, at the very beginning of chapter 2 entitled “what is utilitarianism”. starts off by explaining to the readers what utility is, Utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain. This leads us to another name for utility which is the greatest happiness principle. Mill claims that “actions are right in proportions 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 happiness, pain and the privation of pleasure”.

Read More
1228 Words | 5 Pages

In other words, if a person acts only out of duty and not self-interest, their action is morally justifiable regardless of what the consequence may be. As you can see, this belief is different from the utilitarian who mainly focuses on the end result of an act or the consequences of the

Read More

More about Comparing Mill And Utilitarianism

Related Topics

Open Document