ipl-logo

Mill's Two Proofs For The Greatest Happiness Principle

1594 Words7 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: John stuart mill's version of utilitarianism

Critically examine Mill’s two proofs for the ultimate norm of morality- the greatest happiness for the greatest number of sentient beings. According to his view, Mill's believes that morality is found in the utility which is identical with the Greatest Happiness Principle. His argument on the morality argues that deeds are right proportions because they attempt to encourage happiness. Morality is incorrect when it tends to overturn of happiness. Happiness refers to the anticipated contentment and it shows the nonexistence of tenderness, by sadness, hurt, and the deprivation of the pleasure (John, 1861). The Greatest Happiness Principle also is known as the principal of utility illustrates that happiness is the ultimate norm determining what …show more content…

Utility and liberty are based on the fact that there should be no violation of the self-interested sphere. This brings about the contradiction between the Harm principles and the Great Happiness Principle. According to Mill, there must be a guarantee of protection ring in the self-regarding sphere to every person because sphere individuals have to be totally free while making personal decisions and experimenting devoid of fiddle by making sure that there no pressure from the society. When the total utility in the self-regarding sphere is a prerequisite of the Harm principle, then it does not imply that individuals should be liberated from damage. If people hurt themselves, then this is a breach of the Greatest Happiness Principle that requires the reduction of pain (John, Utilitarian, 1861). In certain occasions, the inconsistency among the two principles can be foreseeable. For example, two people might hurt themselves or even injure themselves with no presence of utility to justify it. If two individuals decide to cut their legs, then this is self-regarding action because it is the two perpetrators who will suffer due to their action. In this case, the principle of Harm would allow this. Because cutting off the legs are painful (without anesthesia), and it would result into pain increase, this act is considered …show more content…

In this case, Harm principle has to be overlooked hence Mill's theory i.e. the utilitarian Mill and the liberal one. The utilitarian and the liberty make a judgment in a unique manner hence utilitarian Mill gives solutions that contradict the liberal one. According to Mill's argument, if the supply of gratification were specifically similar to human beings and the swine, then the rule concerning life would be considered appropriate to be applied to other people. Human powers are more prominent as compared to animals' appetites, and if one make conscious of them, then it is not recommended to consider whatever thing as happiness which does not incorporate their pleasure. This is well-matched with the utility principle to distinguish the reality that various types of contentment are more pleasing and more precious as compared to others. According to Mill, humanly is capable of having higher pleasures as opposed to animals. These gratifications are more attractive and important than others (John, Utilitarian, 1861). Mill suggested criterion to assists in determining the happiness which is quantitative and precious. He suggested that if there might be an individual or some individuals with all or at least some pleasure and do have an experience when it come to making decision

Show More
Related
1040 Words | 5 Pages

Mill argues that each individual can exert his freedom so long as it does not harm anyone else (Mill 1863). What a person does in his life is his business, and I can express disdain or aversion to his actions. If neither of us infringe on one another’s liberty, we cannot act in a way that would limit or remove each other’s liberty (Mill 1863). Contrarily, for self-defense, society and/or the victimized individual can impede on the perpetrator’s liberty if the perpetrator has impinged on someone else’s right to liberty (Mill 1863). Harm to someone’s liberty, whether done actively or inactively, therefore should be legally condemnable (Mill 1863).

Read More
5639 Words | 23 Pages

Uti.162). Mill’s critique derives from the Introduction of Utilitarianism, where he makes the claim that Kantian ethics, and all a priori abstract concept of ethics, derive from first principles (Kant’s the CI) that go unstated, leaving an actual description of action as elusive, and thus the prescriptive ethical determinations derived from the CI unable to inform action (Mill,

Read More
1245 Words | 5 Pages

This is a harm to the children and to the husband but it could be enjoyed by the husband in private. So some actions are offending and some are harmful so it is hard to relate which one was Stuart Mill talking about in his harm principle? Cause, a harmful and an offending situations are not easy to separate especially if there are different people involved. Lord Devlin in his book of morals he speaks”there are difficulties with relying on what an ordinary person would find morally acceptable” According to Mills harm principle he assume that one can embark on an action that doesn’t affect others.

Read More
719 Words | 3 Pages

John Mill says, “those only are happy (I thought) who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness” which I don’t agree with, I know personally in my own life there are lots of things that make me happy that don’t even involve other people or their happiness. I feel that most people agree that they want to be happy and strive to find that happiness, whether it is the perfect partner or a good job, everyday. In A Crisis in my Mental History, John Stuart Mill says,” The only chance is to treat, not happiness, but some end external to it, as the purpose of

Read More
573 Words | 3 Pages

In Mark Kingwell’s excerpt, “In Pursuit of Happiness,” he discusses the challenge of defining happiness. This work serves to inform the audience on a topic they may never have considered while using evidence and support from philosophers, authors, and even scientists to contribute to various viewpoints on the subject. At the end of the excerpt, Kingwell discusses happiness, even unhappiness, and concludes with his own opinions on the subject. Since the beginning of human existence, people have tried to define happiness, but no one has described it sufficiently, which means the search continues.

Read More
87 Words | 1 Pages

In The Most Dangerous Game Richard Connell foreshadows by creating dilemmas which makes the problems he gives to the main fictional character, Rainsford, very complex. General Zaroff is the leader of the island and Richard Connell makes you think if Rainsford will ever escape Ship-Trap Island. General Zaroff says to Rainsford “I’ll see what you can do against my whole pack.” Despite that he already has enough issues trying to win the game. Which foreshadows whether Rainsford will get out alive to win the game or

Read More
1412 Words | 6 Pages

One may say, “If I do something that’s only harming me, then society can’t step in and force me to do otherwise.” However, isn’t everything we do affecting other people in the society? For example, if a person were to not vaccinate his newborn and his newborn contracts a disease, it will affect others in society. In response, Mill would acknowledge that people are not fully isolated from society, and therefore the actions those people take will ultimately affect others and possibly do harm. However, he says, "But with regard to the merely contingent or, as it may be called, constructive injury which a person causes to society by conduct which neither violates any specific duty to the public, nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable individual except himself, the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom” (Mill 80).

Read More
753 Words | 4 Pages

By including the dictionaries definitions, the author shows contradictory explanations for happiness. In addition, using common daily facts he demonstrates how people’s decisions are based on the happiness desire, which we can see by the following words: “… it is nonetheless implicit in our decisions and undertakings, the ordering principle or end of our human projects” (413). Also, Kingwell includes words from other writers, such as John Stuart Mill, Eric Hoffer, Nathaniel Hawthorne and John Ralston Saul, to emphasize the point that the excessive pursuit of happiness causes unhappiness, which makes its definition even more confusing and

Read More
1384 Words | 6 Pages

In the Harm Principle Mill suggests that the actions of individuals should be limited to prevent the harm of others . An individual may do whatever he or she wants, as long as these actions do not harm others. Mill believes in an individual’s autonomy; being self governed. We can live as we wish, and therefor also die as and when we wish. As Mill says: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Read More
774 Words | 4 Pages

John Stuart Mill’s explains that we do not have to look for happiness because we can find it without searching for it, we do not have to focus entirely on our own happiness, but make other people happy in order to find happiness of your own. He explains that we do not have to search for happiness because it will come all we need to focus on is on subjects other than thinking of being happy. I agree with some of the idea’s John S.M. has when he argues that we should not search for happiness. I agree with John Stuart Mill’s when he states that happiness will come to you when you are not looking for it.

Read More
1503 Words | 7 Pages

For a functional society, individuals must be protected from other individuals. The harm principle is why laws against murder, armed robbery, rape, etc. exist. These crimes are immoral in nature and should not be condoned in any way. A civil society is where the greatest total happiness can occur.

Read More
1163 Words | 5 Pages

Rule utilitarianism is a belief in which, an action is morally right, as long as it justified in accordance to a particular law. Utilitarianism is less complicated to understand (compared to other moral theories) because it consists of “doing whatever produces the best consequences” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Virtue Ethics). Mill viewed the greatest happiness principle as the cornerstone of morals, he

Read More
852 Words | 4 Pages

A man by the name of John Stuart Mill seems to be able to give us some answers to these questions. Mill starts our inquiring journey with defining what utilitarianism stands for. In short he states that it is the construction of utility, which claims that the actions that stimulate happiness in is morally fit and vice versa to be unfit. Happiness is something that we want for

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 Mill's Two Proofs For The Greatest Happiness Principle

Related Topics

Open Document