ipl-logo

Mill's Two Proofs For The Greatest Happiness Principle

1594 Words7 Pages

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

Open Document