Mill’s system of ethics, Utilitarianism, is focused on promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill evaluates the moral actions in favor of the quality of the consequences that ensue. For Mill, an action is right insofar as its consequences yield the most happiness. Mill is arguing for ethical good, he is more concerned with the objective consequences instead of the quality of the will of the agent. The scope of his morality encompasses sentient beings.
Even though Utilitarianism has many concepts, all of which have a common goal to create the most amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, there are specific concepts that highlight why Mill is considered the most moral theory. One of those concepts is his idea of having rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism for everyone to follow. Rule utilitarianism is what our society is today; we have laws emplaced for the common good of society, to keep stability and create the most amount of happiness within the community. General rules which keep happiness and calmness within the group. You may ask the question, though, what if a law is biased to a certain group of individuals?
In Utilitarianism, Mill provides many defenses for criticisms of utilitarian ideals and expands on the theory with his own ideas. While discussing morals and actions that cause them, Mill glances past a discussion that I think is important. On page 756, Mill states that the motives behind actions are not important in determining what is morally right, only the action itself does. I believe that the motives are an important part in determining morality.
John Stuart Mill’s theory states that people will choose to follow the principals of utility because they seek the favor of friends and neighbor or they fear the specter of God. Utilitarianism also teaches that education should prepare all persons to attach their own happiness to the happiness of their whole community. In the scenario with me (district attorney) and my friend (nursing home administrator); we would solve this dilemma of utilitarianism by meeting the happiness of the 400 patients by allowing Dr. Jill Kevorkian to assist in the suicide of the patients. My friend (nursing administrator) used the ethics of consequence to approach the situation; also, my friend (nursing administrator) was trying to do more good by filling the needs
A deed that is morally good is called the “right action”. In this paper, I argue that Kant’s method for distinguishing “right action” is better than Mill’s view because Mill’s view is based on the consequences of the action, whereas Kant defines “right action” by its motives. English Philosopher, John Stuart Mill, emphasized utilitarianism. The concept is that “the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things” (Nathanson). By following this concept, we understand that the “right action” is determined only by its consequence and nothing prior.
John Stuart Mill a philosopher during the 1800’s influenced by utilitarianism introduces the theory during his time. James Mill was a supporter of the utilitarian theory that he learned from Jeremy Bentham which he was a supporter of. John started learning at a young age his father influenced his teachings to him. This lead to John’s reading of Jeremy Bentham philosophy and became a strong supporter of the theory. “The central aim of John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism is to defend the view that those acts that produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people are right and good” (Deininger 2015).
Save the Poor or Be Free to Make Your Own Choices Utility is defined as an action that benefits the majority of society. Utilitarian John Stuart Mill, is someone who I have observed to determine this decision. Liberty is different in that it incorporates individual’s rights by allowing for people to do as they please and creating minimal state interference. The issue needs to be fixed on whether the government should intervene with a utilitarian perspective and help the poor. This would cause the lumber company to lose their individual freedoms.
As the author mentioned, this dilemma puts Mill’s Utilitarianism against Kant’s Formalism. Utilitarianism is satisfied as the sacrifice of the life of one person to save the lives of five others produces the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, and would occur in both cases. On the other hand, Kant’s Duty-Based Ethics expresses that “each person’s conscience imposes an absolute categorical imperative on the person to follow those courses of action that would be acceptable as universal principles for everyone. Kant emphasized that it was the intention to do one’s duty that was significant, not the actual results or consequences. Thus, Kant’s theory rejects taking any life and would simply let the train continue on it’s meant course of action.
Utilitarian theory This theory reveals that an act can only be considered to be ethical if its end result is happiness for the majority affected by that particular act, as per the point that the ultimate goal of human beings is to be happy. The person who came with this theory, John Stuart Mill calls it the greatest happiness principle. In order for a person to come to the conclusion that the majority will be happy with the outcome, it means that the practical outcome of an act must be looked at to determine such. When applying this theory in the state being captured by the Guptas family: the family will benefit from this, if they control or influence the state the decision taken will benefit them more. From doing so the family has built
Now it is time to discuss Kant’s polar opposite in the field of philosophy and ethics, John Stuart Mill. Mill is the man who cultivated the principles of utilitarianism. In utilitarianism, this segment of philosophy tries to promote a lot of the things Kant would of consider to be absolute detriments. Utilitarianism tries to foster an overall happiness for the human race and by doing so Mill tries to focus extensively on the consequences of actions. Mill would often support the idea that happiness is the foundation to the idea of morality.
I am writing on John Stuart Mill’s idea of Utilitarianism. This is Mills concept of how to determine what is right and what is wrong based on consequences. Utilitarianism is the idea that the consequence of an action is happiness then the action is therefore considered justified. Mills claims that “each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness” (McCloskey, pg 61). When he says this he means that if one specific thing benefits one person then that same thing should be beneficial to everyone else as well.
When we first started learning about John Stuart Mills’ Theory, I thought it was going to be overly simple. The book Utilitarianism by Mill was a very short read, but it contained a lot of important information. After learning more about his theory, I found it to be quite interesting. It ended up being more relatable than what I originally thought it would be. When we know what we are looking for, we can apply his theory to many situations and aspects of our daily lives.
The theory of utilitarianism is usually a prominent issue for discussion to many self-proclaimed wise philosophers. But is the theory itself wise? This question can be thoroughly assessed by examining the juxtaposition of wisdom and utilitarianism. By definition, utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical doctrine holding that the happiness and successfulness of the greatest number of people in a population is considered the greatest good of the population regardless of the status of the fewer. Two of the most well-known proponents for utilitarianism are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
John Stuart Mill is most popularly known for his development of utilitarianism. In short, utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. In his book about utilitarianism he writes about many things, one of those being liberty and how much should be giving to a society. He discusses if the people should be allowed to voice their own opinion. He describes how they could voice it in many ways.
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”.
