John Stuart Mill's Principle Of Utility

1) The principle of Utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure , We posit as our end the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of suffering. This is the telos or the Final End of all our actions. Ethics becomes a simple calculation of what will make the most amount of people happy while causing the least amount of suffering. It is called the principle of utility because it is saying that the outcome is what is important in ethics, not the way we approach it utility is a teleological principle. The feeling of pleasure and pain are biological events involving our central nervous system, which are controlled by our cerebral cortex. We obviously experienced pleasure when we perform

We sometimes but not always experience pleasure when we do the right thing . We experience pain when these functions are left unfulfilled. In other word Utility is a. Mill says that people desire virtue , which is distinguished from happiness, However , Mill states that people love virtue because it is part of happiness. Mill also believed that if you can't make everyone happy, make the most people happy. The motivation for making a decision this way is that it's not always possible to account for all ethical or moral drawbacks to a decision so you have to make a compromise. To be inactive is worse. Perhaps the measure of happiness is not the best word. Maybe it should be replaced with 'contentment' or 'satisfaction and it is these judgments which have utility. I think that Mill believes that if decisions can be made with the greatest good in mind and no agenda then they give a human being the satisfaction that the right choice has been made. Perhaps the 'happiness' does not come from the choice made and whom it affects, but rather from the knowledge that it was the best possible

For example; if lying is bad to everybody, then do not lie even if the consequences of lying are good.The contradiction is, he asserts living by the categorical imperative or the motivation of goodwill, but says emotions and desires have nothing to do with it. Saving others, whether from drowning, starvation or trolleys is in general an imperfect in Kant's ethics. It is a duty, because you would certainly want to be saved from either. But it's not a perfect duty, because it's possible to imagine situations where you wouldn't want to be saved. For instance, the people at either end of that trolley track might plausibly shout "don't save me, save the others!". I could never say "Steal from me!" because that would be a contradiction: if I had your permission, it wouldn't be stealing at all.Your perfect duties never contradict each other, and are always negative in nature: They demand that you abstain from some action.Your imperfect duties, however, can be active, and they can come in conflict, and they cannot usually be definitively fulfilled. You have a duty to help others, because you do want others to help you. But you'll never complete that duty, and you can't help everyone all the time. His categorical imperative stated that if you choose to act morally you should make this a universal law. He argued that this went beyond the constraints of utilitarianism. It was therefore