Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Act utilitarianism
Jeremy bentham utilitarianism theory
A critique of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Act utilitarianism
Jeremy bentham utilitarianism theory
A critique of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Act utilitarianism
He believes that the pleasure or pain a person feels is directly related to whether or not the action was right or wrong (Bentham, 39). This means that an action is right when it causes the greatest pleasure for the person or group of people who are involved. If there is a group of people and a certain action would benefit the majority of them for good, then it would be considered to be the right action. On the other hand, if the action does not benefit the majority and only benefits a few, then it would be considered to be wrong. The ultimate goal of this theory is to bring happiness to those involved and to also prevent evil and unhappiness within the group (Bentham, 39).
Bentham founded utilitarianism and developed the principle of adding pleasures and subtracting sufferings to promote a happy nation. However, one of the critics is that it only makes most people happy but leave a minority by itself. According to Eric Weiner, happiness is also a business of the government. Fifteen years
As English Philosopher John Stuart Mill once said, “A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly
John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher well known as a proponent for utilitarianism and as a student of Jeremy Bentham, the founder of modern utilitarianism. Mill believed in personal liberty and that individual liberty was the best way to run society. He was a staunch believer in freedom of speech. Mill believed that it was important to hear everybody’s opinion, especially irreligious speech, no matter how much one might disagree with them, as it could turn out that someone else’s opinion may be correct. One of Mill’s premises is that everybody is that anybody is capable of being wrong.
John Stuart Mill was a philosopher, political economist and civil servant in the 19th century . Mill is a Liberalist, which means that he believed that the government should not influence our personal choices as equal citizens of a society. John Mill was also a Utilitarian,
Two of the most well respected philosophers of their time Kant and Mill share their views as different as they might be. Kant’s basis is categorical imperative. In the writings of Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals it is described as “act only according to the maxim whereby you can… will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 30). The other main point that Kant makes in his agreement is that we should not treat people as means but as ends themselves (36). Mill has a different stance, he states his principle in Utilitarianism “Greatest Happiness Principle”.
Utilitarian Summaries Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism is based off the Greatest Happiness Principle, which states that actions are considered moral when they promote good or the happiness of oneself or others and immoral when they promote the reverse affect. Mill continued to direct this statement towards the concept of pain and pleasure. People often base their personal happiness on the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. Mills discusses pleasure and the root of pleasure to mankind. When discussing pleasure in humans, it is not always a matter of simply the presence of that pleasure but often the question remains quality vs. quantity.
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.
His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” (P.9). The need for humans to progress morally comes down to the ability for that individual to have freedom over their thoughts and expressions. However, Mill argues that this can be infringed upon she the scope of words and actions of one individual begins to interfere with the rights of others. It must contain three elements, one it must be other-regarding meaning that the harm must only apply to others and not yourself. Second, there needs to be tangibility that comes not just from words, but from actions.
The greatest good is that which brings the most happiness to the most people. This idea is very easily found in todays society. For example if you find a lost child you will help him find his parents because it will bring happiness to the child, the parents, and to you. On the other side you will not abandon the child because it will bring pain to the child, the parents, and possibly to yourself. These quick pros and cons list that we think of on a daily bases is what Mills and Bentham build their philosophy off
I hope to convince the reader that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the better way to live a morally conscious life and more practical to follow as well. First I will briefly describe both Kant’s and Mill’s principles. Then I will go on to explain the advantages and disadvantages of both. Finally, I hope to provide a counterargument for some of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives downfalls. Kant states the Categorical Imperative as: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law."
It is a results-based concept that gives no weight to the intentions that drive actions but, rather, places emphasis on the consequences of such actions. With specific reference to Bentham’s Utilitarianism and his incorporation of Hedonistic Calculus, this theory is simply derived from human being’s primal desires to seek pleasure and restrict pain, and suggests that morally good actions are those which would accomplish such. Furthermore, the idea of striving to achieve ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number’ fuels an objection to this theory when considering the minority,
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”.
The hedonic calculus has seven different criteria that must be considered to evaluate the balance between good and evil. This appears practical and easy to use in any situation; however, it has its issues. For example, Bentham suggested that all pleasure and pain should be measured equally. This causes a major problem when put into the context of business ethics, as it suggests that the pain experienced by a child forced to work in a factory is equal to a shareholder in a business gaining a little more profit – surely, this is unethical. J.S. Mill noticed this issue, introducing rule utilitarianism, in which he recognised the differences in different types of pleasures.
Brogan’s work John Locke and Utilitarianism, Brogan interprets Locke’s Essay with the endeavor of elucidating on Locke’s liberal ideals on what should be considered the standard of morality. “The standard or criterion of morality (or “virtue”) is the good (interpreted as the happiness) of all” (Brogan, pg. 80). Locke has an egoistic notion of morality, in which the self-interest of others is what constitutes morality for him--and ultimately the greatest good, which extends to public happiness. “Locke is an empiricist in holding that the materials of knowing and choosing come from external senses or from the internal perceptions of the operations of the mind (within which are included pleasure and pain)” (Brogan, pg. 93).