Utilitarianism as explained by John Stuart Mill is a principle that is defined as “The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people for the greatest length of time.” Mill explains that we are happiness seeking individuals but at the same time, so is everyone else. So if I am in an ethical situation, I should always choose the path that has the greatest happiness for everyone, including myself. According to Mill, happiness for him is just pleasure and the absence of pain. In reality, I should think about my choices, think how many people will be “happy” with the least amount of pain as a whole. As we learned in the lesson, there are a lot of things that utilitarianism is not and that it could have some misinterpretations. Utilitarianism is not hedonistic. It can be misinterpreted because since it is about the greatest …show more content…
Mill’s harm principle explains “that all actions that directly harm no one except willing informed participants in the action should be legal,” In other words, you can do whatever you want as long as it does not affect anyone else. This however, will not protect you from self-harm. But who decides this what is right and wrong? Mill talks about qualified judges. Qualified judges are people who are capable of experiencing all pleasures under some consideration. To have good qualified judges you must have diversity, people living in different ways so we have multiple qualified judges for every situation. Mill later explains that “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”. As we learned in this lesson, the main reasoning behind our laws according to Mill should be “I can swing my arm until it hits you”. It is a very simple thing to break down. Basically, if there is no victim for that action, that same action will not be considered a