John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism Conception - Essay Example

Utilitarianism examines the moral actions by its contribution to its overall outcome. It believes in maximized happiness and goodness. It has been described as the greatest good for the majority of people. John Stuart Mill was the leading proponent of this ethical theory. Mill believed in the qualitative separation of pleasures. He argued that intellectual and moral pleasures have a degree of superiority over other types of pleasure. He also believed in the superiority of happiness over contentment. He gave an example of this by stating that an unhappy Socrates was better than a happy fool. He also defined the difference between higher and lower forms of happiness. Mill advocated the empowerment of university graduates who were believed to be in a better position to decide what is best for society. John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism is usually seen as the classical expression of consequential ethical thinking (Rosen, 45, 2003).Utilitarianism has been the most influential normative ethical theory taking the teleological approach in modern times. It was based on the concept that if any alternative is suitable for the majority of the people than it is correct. Utilitarianism comes in two basic forms: Act Utilitarianism, and Rule Utilitarianism. According to utilitarianism, the moral status of an action is determined by the actual or probable consequences that the action will have for everyone whose lives are affected by that action. The moral agent has the obligation to perform that action that will bring about the best consequences overall. The value or usefulness of an action in promoting good and preventing evil is known as the "utility" of the action, and so the basic principle of utilitarianism is known as the Principle of Utility. This theory proposes that the worth of any action depends on its outcome (Mill, 23, 1974). A striking feature of Mills statement about pleasure is that, apart from being universal, it is quite ambiguous. It contains nothing to tell the reader what they should or should not find to be pleasurable or painful. This ties in to the concept of the impartiality of utilitarianism. To establish a moral framework based on the principle of utility, it must necessarily strive to increase the pleasure and decrease the pain of all those who adhere to it. That does not preclude, however, that there could not be many different utilitarian moral codes whose individual laws are quite disparate, but are seen by their adherents to promote the principle of utility. This is possible because Mill accepts that it is difficult and unwieldy to live ones life trying to promote the "total happiness" of the world - the end goal of utilitarianism. Mill claimed that utilitarians must recognize that human beings have the power to sacrifice their greatest good for the good of others. However they reject the concept of sacrifice as being good. A sacrifice which does not increase happiness is not correct since it would be wasted. Utilitarianism only accepts rejection if it is used for the pursuit of happiness which is beneficial for mankind collectively. Mill states in his essay that happiness in utilitarianism is not concerned with a human being’s personal happiness, but the collective happiness of all humanity (Mill, 1863, para. 21) John Stuart Mill, in his search for the true basis of morality, expounds what is viewed by many to be the most compelling and intuitive moral theory in existence. Its widespread popularity and acceptance is due in no small part to its solid base, the self-evident first principle of the intrinsic goodness of pleasure. This statement is the foundation of Mills further philosophical thinking, and has a profound effect on his moral outlook as a whole (Waldron, 32, 1995). One of the most common criticisms against utilitarianism was by Bernard Williams who believed that the theory argues that actions are good if the majority of people are happy with it. One of his famous arguments was about Jim, a scientist working in a brutal dictatorship. He finds himself in a town where some rebels have been captured. The Captain of the army says that if Jim kills one of the rebels the others will be set free. His failure to kill one person will result in the deaths of each rebel. Utilitarianism would say that Jim should kill the rebel to save each of the rebels. Williams argued that there is a difference between him killing a person and someone being killed because of him. Utilitarianism would not be able to preserve the status of human beings as making decisions with integrity (Cornman, 74, 1992). Williams believed that Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences and deprives humanity of its integrity. This happens because the theory separates agent’s actions from projects (Harwood, 41, 2003). William opposed utilitarianism based on the reason that it was a systematization of ethical thinking. He argued that systematizing ethical thinking can lead to losses and distortions. He questioned the right of utilitarianism to legislate a human being’s moral sentiments. Williams criticized utilitarianism because it was only concerned with the production of good consequences but it did not offer an explanation for anything to be a good consequence. Williams’ objection to utilitarian theory begins with his observation that our lives are ‘bound up’ with certain core concerns. These pursuits, activities and aims that we may see as central to our character or to our identity he calls ‘ground projects’ and (sometimes) ‘commitments.’ First, in his objections to utilitarianism, Williams claims that ground projects and other commitments are central to a person’s integrity. Integrity, he suggests, cannot merely be cast aside in favor of impartial morality (Lyons, 29, 1965). Second, in his objection he argues that we have categorical desires for ground projects and that these too should not always give way to moral demands. On one interpretation of his claim concerning categorical desires, the object of such desires can be seen as forming a basis of our reason to live—a foundation for what gives our lives meaning. Williams’ objection to a certain way of interpreting moral requirements is that a person’s integrity and sense of meaningfulness can both be threatened if she is unable to act on her ground projects. His objection thus applies to any view of morality that requires us to give up, undermine or forego actions to realize our ground projects. Ground projects and commitments are distinguished from other pursuits by their importance to the person and by their role in forming her character. For example, Williams argues that what distinguishes a person’s pursuit of a ground project from other things she cares about is that “it is at once more thoroughgoing and serious...more individual and permeated with character than the desire for the necessities of life.” While there are probably intuitive limits on ground projects given the sorts of things that people tend to care deeply about, Williams places no obvious rational or conceptual limits on ground projects: One can be committed to such things as a person, a cause, an institution, a career, one’s own genius, or the pursuit of danger (Singer, 14, 1981). Williams’ argument does not need to capture everything we mean by ‘integrity.’ We can think of the sort of integrity that ties up with ground projects as a kind of integrity as wholeness a concern to act consistently with those aims that one has decided should have central significance. Such a concern is surely significant to our agency. Williams’ well-known skepticism about the normative status of moral reasons when they conflict with an agent’s desires suggests an additional argument that some moral sacrifices are unreasonable. Williams argues that what may be thought a rational consideration is not a reason for that agent unless some psychological fact in an agent’s psychology that could conceivably serve as a motivation to act on that reason. The model of reasons Williams defends claims that any motive grounding a reason must come from an agent’s prior set of motivations or “subjective motivational set.” According to Mill, laws and social arrangements should place the happiness of everyone in harmony with the interest of the whole. Bernard argued that it was wrong to act without thinking about the possible consequences of your actions; however Mill felt that if everyone simply treated each other as they wished to be treated, the consequences would be irrelevant, because there wouldnt be any. William’s objections cannot be answered because despite all the arguments against Utilitarianism, there are some valid points for the theory (Singer, 63, 1981). It is widely accepted throughout the world as many countries run by means of democracy. Our political leaders are elected through the ballot box, the majority overriding the minority. This however does not automatically mean that they are the most suited people for the job. Utilitarianism also allows people to contemplate the situation before making the decision. This time prevents people from making hasty, unethical decisions, as it encourages thought before action (Silverstein, 89, 1972). The aim of the theory is to produce happiness and pleasure. Another good aspect of Utilitarianism is that it has one simple absolute, which can be applied to all situations with a positive outcome. In times of difficulty, it eases people out of difficult situations, as they cannot be blamed for making the wrong decision if they claim it was for the happiness of the majority. Any prejudices the decision maker may hold are eradicated in Utilitarianism, as they have to stick to the main rule. References: Rosen, Frederick (2003). Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. US: Routledge. Mill, John Stuart (1974). On Liberty. US: Penguin Classics. Mill, John Stuart (1863). Utilitarianism. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from Utilitarianism Resources Web site: http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm Waldron, Jeremy (1995). Rights in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. USA: Blackwell Publishing. Cornman, James (1992). Philosophical Problems and Arguments - An Introduction. USA: Hackett Publishing Co. Harwood, Sterling (2003). Eleven Objections to Utilitarianism. USA: Hackett Publishing Co. Lyons, David (1965). Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Martin, Michael (1970). A Utilitarian Kantian Principle. USA: Philosophical Studies. Silverstein, Harry S (1972). A Defence of Utilitarian Principle. USA: Philosophical Studies. Singer, Peter (1981). The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology. New York, USA: Farrar. Read More