• 397 Words
• 2 Pages

Utilitarianism’s believe in that only the outcomes matter when it comes to decisions and morality, however, those outcomes can also be questioned. Mill forms the framework of utilitarianism by discussing it in a way that makes assumptions; these objections can also be questioned against also.

• 397 Words
• 2 Pages

• 816 Words
• 4 Pages

Chapter 5 of Utilitarianism contains Mill’s response to the objection that justice is not based on utility. In his introduction Mill claims that an incomplete understanding of the idea and sentiment of justice, not a mistaken interpretation of utility, leads people to believe justice is inconsistent with utility. Chapter 5 gives an analysis of justice, its ideas and its sentiment, with Mill concluding that when properly understood, justice is consistent with and subordinate to utility, rather than opposed to it. In this paper I will argue that amidst Mill’s response to the initial objection, his argument lacks clarity and an objective analysis as to exactly why justice is based on utility.

• 816 Words
• 4 Pages

• 374 Words
• 2 Pages

Due to execrable food preparation prior to June 30, 1906, the United States established the Pure Food and Drug Act to ban the preparation, sale, and shipment of contaminated food and drugs. The act also banned mis-labelling and false claims of food and drugs. On June 30, 1906, The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was also established to ensure the safety of the goods and the safety of the consumer.

• 374 Words
• 2 Pages

• 1163 Words
• 5 Pages

“The greatest good for the greatest number”; that is how the British philosopher John Stuart Mill famously summarized utilitarianism (Shafer-Landau, 2012b, p. 120). He is not only one of the greatest utilitarians, he is also a hedonist. Hence, he believed that this greatest good can be achieved by focussing all action on attaining the greatest amount of happiness. Mill describes utility as holding ‘that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness’ ((Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 17). He defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and unhappiness as pain and the privation of pleasure. Hence, Mill argues that only pleasure is intrinsically desirable and only misery intrinsically bad (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 120). All other desirable things are only desirable as means to promote pleasure or prevent pain (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 18). Therefore, in order to refute Mill’s utilitarianism, one would have to show that there is something other than pleasure or the freedom from pain that is intrinsically desirable. First, Robert Nozick’s attempt to disprove utilitarianism and hedonism in the shape of his ‘experience machine’ will be explained. Next, Mill’s arguments in favour of utilitarianism and hedonism will be recapitulated in an attempt to answer the central research question: why does Nozick’s experience

• 1163 Words
• 5 Pages

• 1837 Words
• 8 Pages

There also seems to be a distinction between Bentham and Mill as to what constitutes well-being in relation to pleasure. Both philosophers are hedonists and advocate the idea that without pleasure, well-being is not achieved. However, Bentham’s approach is directly experiential: a person’s well-being correlates exactly to the pleasure that that person experiences. Mill clearly disagrees with such a view as he argues that in some cases – those of higher pleasures – an experience with less pleasure than another can still bring about more well-being. This phenomenon would be impossible in Bentham’s theory and has led many to conclude that Mill clearly values something for wellbeing other than simply

• 1837 Words
• 8 Pages

• 600 Words
• 3 Pages

John Stuart Mill had some ideas that can be added to Jeremy Bentham’s thoughts. “Mill defines happiness as a set of higher-order pleasures such as intellectual, aesthetic, and social enjoyments rather than mere sensual pleasure” (EHC 33). Mill’s definition of happiness explains the everyday situations that each person’s happiness must be considered equally. As stated in the Consequentialism lecture, Case Studies, EHC readings can

• 600 Words
• 3 Pages

• 541 Words
• 3 Pages

Sometimes in life you are faced with a decision that no matter what you do the desired outcome will not be what you would personally desire to happen. In the moral dilemma of the young man that has been conscripted by his government to fight a war, while at the same time leave his mother back at home with a terminal illness, there is no simple right answer. This delimit was proposed by Jean-Paul Sarte. On one level this dilemma could be addressed by Mill’s and a Utilitarian view, if the young man goes to serve his country he would be serving the greater good and happiness of all, possibly helping many more people than if he stayed and took care of his ailing mother. Under these teachings even though it would not make the soldier happy to leave his mother in a time of need, the idea of serving and making the most people happy as possible, would serve the greatest good.

• 541 Words
• 3 Pages

• 1093 Words
• 5 Pages
• 1 Works Cited

This work has probably received more analysis than any other work on utilitarianism available. However, I seek to do here what many others have been unable to accomplish so far. I hope to, in five paragraphs, cover each of the chapters of Utilitarianism in enough depth to allow any reader to decide whether or not they subscribe to Mill's doctrine, and if so, which part or parts they subscribe to. I do this with the realization that much of Mill's deliberation in the text will be completely gone. I suggest that anyone who seeks to fully understand Mill's work should read it at length.

• 1093 Words
• 5 Pages
• 1 Works Cited

• 1393 Words
• 6 Pages
• 5 Works Cited

In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.

• 1393 Words
• 6 Pages
• 5 Works Cited

• 1004 Words
• 5 Pages

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that holds the morally right course of action in any given situation is the course of which yields the greatest balance of benefits over harms. More specifically, utilitarianism’s core idea is that the effects of an action determine whether actions are morally right or wrong. Created with the philosophies of Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), Utilitarianism began in England in the 19th Century. Bentham and Mill built their system of Utilitarianism on ancient hedonism (pursuing physical pleasure and avoiding physical pain). Although both of these philosophers agreed on the basic principals of Utilitarianism they disagreed on what exactly hedonism is.

• 1004 Words
• 5 Pages

• 846 Words
• 4 Pages

Bentham argues that humans only commit actions on the bases of utility, which is the desire to enjoy happiness and prevent pain. He is certain that utility alone governs human morality and that the principles of utilitarianism are morally correct for every situation. Bentham claims that the purpose of morality is to increase the happiness of society and every action should aim to benefit the greatest number. He argues that without attaining happiness for the greatest number, society becomes dysfunction. In Bentham’s perfect utilitarian society, individuals would put aside their personal desires which cause pain to society as a whole in order to promote universal happiness. Bentham, strongly suggests that utilitarianism has no uncertainties, period. After objective analysis under Utilitarianism, before committing any action an individual must first examine the happiness which can be extracted from the action and the potential harms that it can cause, if the action yields more pain to the greatest number it is immoral. Bentham concludes that pain can’t yield happiness and that for an action to be morally correct it must

• 846 Words
• 4 Pages

• 1273 Words
• 6 Pages
• 3 Works Cited

John Stuart Mill adds more arguments to Bentham’s view of Utilitarianism, which are important factors to consider when discussing this topic. Utilitarianism is the idea to promote the greatest happiness to the general society as opposed to oneself (Mill, 114). Each pleasure is said to have its own difference in quality, so people are able to make the choice between two pleasures (115). Mill believes mental pleasures reign more important than bodily pleasures seeing that bodily pleasures are seen as inferior to the greater good (115). It takes a higher grade of pleasures to make a human satisfied and pleased. “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (116). An important factor for choosing higher pleasures over inferior pleasures is that you only have time for one pleasure and if you chose the inferior pleasure it will be wasted (117). However the standards of what is right and wrong are not decided by the person’s own happiness but the happiness of everyone who is concerned in the decision (117). Being a Utilitarian forces you to stay an

• 1273 Words
• 6 Pages
• 3 Works Cited

• 268 Words
• 2 Pages

In Mill’s “Utilitarianism” he brings up a response that some have to the principles of Utilitarianism. The response is an objection to the Utilitarian moral theory. The objection that Mill recounts is that the people who do not agree with the Utilitarian moral theory say that Utilitarianism suggests that human beings are like swine. The argument for this idea is that Utilitarianism is about the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain. So with this in mind, those against the Utilitarianism say that then it would be morally right to live life as a satisfied pig which seems very absurd. An example of this concept would be with drug addicts. The objectors believe that Utilitarianism says that it is morally right to live life

• 268 Words
• 2 Pages

• 861 Words
• 4 Pages

In July 2011, activists shut down a San Francisco subway station as a way of protesting the death of a man shot by a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officer. This case was totally against the utilitarianism’s ethical. The principal of utilitarianism state that a person should perform an action that will produce the most benefit to each person or the most happiness to the greatest number of people. Happiness in this term is defined as something that is fun but not to be a moral action. Quinton (1973), for instance, assume an individual who supports utilitarianism as those who agree that the goodness of an action or behavior is determined by the outcome of the action. Moreover, utilitarianism is also a basic theory of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) which describes the concept of utilitarianism as a principle of utility or happiness. Most to emphasize that something is right or good conduct in proportion or

• 861 Words
• 4 Pages

• 1444 Words
• 6 Pages

Another problem with Bentham’s philosophy is that he would not distinguish between pleasure and pain, seemingly defining them as the same thing. In my opinion pleasure is generally a momentary thing whilst happiness is a more lasting and consistent thing. One might gain pleasure from sitting watching TV all day long. However in doing he is missing work and so will end up with no job and no money to support himself (and pay his TV licence!) and will presumably be left unhappy. So, as demonstrated by this example, pleasure is not necessarily happiness and Bentham, was mistaken to define them together

• 1444 Words
• 6 Pages