Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

Utilitarianism Essay, Research Paper

John Stuart Mill suggests that a individual? s ethical decision-making procedure

should be based entirely upon the sum of felicity that the individual can have.

Although Mill to the full justifies himself, his attack lacks certain standards for

which felicity can be considered. Happiness should be judged, non merely by

pleasance, but by hurting every bit good. This paper will analyze Mill? s place on

felicity, and the logical thinking behind it. Showing where there are understandings and

where there are dissensions will review the theory of Utilitarianism. By

demoing the jobs that the theory have will uncover what should do up

ethical decision-making. John Stuart Mill supports and explains his logical thinking in

his book, Utilitarianism. Mill illustrates the guidelines of his theory. Factory

defines utilitarianism as the pursuit for felicity. His chief point is that one

should steer his or her opinions by what will give pleasance. Mill believes

that a individual should ever seek to derive pleasance and cull hurting.

Utilitarianism besides states that the actions of a individual should be based upon the

? greatest felicity rule? . This rule states that ethical actions

command the greatest sum of felicity for the greatest figure of people. Factory

farther explores the demand for pleasance by observing? a being of higher modules

requires more to do him happy. ? . He acknowledges that some pleasances are

more tempting than others are. He adds to this by doing known that when puting

value in things to cipher pleasance, non merely measure of import but quality

every bit good. Mill? s standards for felicity is easy understood, some statements

that he gives are questionable. John Stuart Mill obviously laid out what he

believes that the footing for ethical decision-making. First, the chase of

pleasance is straight related to happiness. This thought can be easy accepted. It

is natural for a individual to concentrate his ends on things that will convey him

pleasance. It would be absurd if person? s end in life was to be hapless and

hungering. This being said, it does non intend that people are merely happy due

wealth but that no 1? s ends are focused on poorness. Although there are many

issues that can be agreeable with Mill, there are jobs that exist with his

theory of utilitarianism. First, Mill says that all ethical determinations should be

based on pleasance. This statement becomes questionable when Mill states that

pleasance is the exclusive demand for felicity. Pain indirectly effects

felicity. Pain is an indirect factor because is non the object of one? s

felicity, but is an obstruction which 1 must get the better of to derive it. If one is to

avoid all hurting in his or her life, so how will that individual genuinely know what

true pleasance feels like? True pleasance comes merely after sing hurting. If a

individual ever wins a race, does he or she feel true pleasance each clip they win

or does it turn into a feeling that they come to anticipate? If there is a individual

who loses races invariably, will his felicity be greater when he eventually wins?

The wagess and pleasances of the 2nd individual would greatly outweigh the

feelings of felicity the first had because he or she knows how it feels to be

defeated. The 2nd individual knows the hurting that is received because of failure

so when he when he will acknowledge the joy and pleasance that comes with winning.

Using this same scene, would it be better for the 2nd individual to run in

races filled with people who ar

vitamin E non matched in accomplishment merely so he may ever win

or should he or she race persons who are every bit matched? Although the first

would bring forth pleasance, the 2nd illustration would give the greater sum of

pleasance due to the apprehension that the competition was equally matched. Both

of these illustrations show that hurting can finally do pleasance, and in some

instances the presence of hurting will increase the feeling of felicity. Another point

were there is dissension is when Mill justifies the chase of pleasance by

stating? actions are right in proportion as they tend to advance felicity ;

incorrect as they tend to bring forth the contrary of happiness. ? This statement is non

universally true. Peoples have different positions, what is pleasance for one

could be pain for another. Who is right and is incorrect? A job evolves because

there is no set definition refering to what is enjoyable hence right and

painful hence incorrect. The concluding dissension with Utilitarian provinces that if

person saves a individual who is submerging, the savior did what is morally right

even if his purposes were incorrect. This is hard to understand. If the

savior saved the individual, merely to do the individual dice of a greater hurting ; Mill

still believes the savior to be morally right. Purposes should be really

of import when it concerns morality. The trouble in make up one’s minding if the

individual? s purposes are moral is that there is no manner to cognize for certain. The

fact that there is no manner to positively state, the individual perpetrating the act

does. For trusters of God and Jesus Christ, it is a wickedness to hold impure

ideas. Harmonizing to Mill, the impure ideas wear? t go a wickedness until

person else knows about them. Whether the act is told to person or it is unbroken

a secret, it is still a wickedness. No affair how many other people think you are

morally right, if you know in your bosom that you are incorrect, so there is no

manner that you can be moral. Although Mill has made good points, he did non

accurately depict the standards for felicity. Ethical thought should non be

based entirely on pleasance. It is true that pleasance is of import to happiness,

but one must cover with hurting and wretchedness to be genuinely happy. Good and bad

invariably affect each other but, the relationship between the two are polar

antonyms. This statement holds true no affair what one believes. To happen

felicity, the opposing sides must happen a suited balance. This does non intend

that hurting is ever a day-to-day portion of life, but that it can non and should non be

avoided. If one were to seek to avoid hurting, it is rather possible that they would

unwittingly pass up pleasance. This would go on because a individual would be excessively

worried to take a opportunity on neglecting. Pain is a portion of life merely as pleasance is.

To harvest the benefits of one, there must be effects given to the other.

There is a quotation mark that goes, ? You must imbibe from the goblet of hurting, before

you can sip from the elixir of self-respect? Another standard for felicity

and morality should be based upon attendings. If one performs a moral action,

but has immoral purposes, that individual should non be considered ethically

correct. To be genuinely right and happy, one must non merely move but believe right.

Mill suggests that pleasance should steer our decision-making. While the

statement is true, it is non to the full correct. If a individual will cover with hurting that

come from difficult work, dedication, and doggedness, so the benefits will be

that much sweeter.

Post Author: admin