ood would mean the opposite of minimizing suffering as that would be disregarding intensive research conducted by Stuart Mill and myriad philosophers. “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness (pleasure)” (Mill, 2005, P. 5). Promoting happiness; thus, pleasure, entails maximizing good deeds to a greater population while minimizing suffering in the same population. In the least terms, both the primary and secondary objectives are directly proportional to each other. It is impossible to do good without minimizing suffering. In fact, minimizing suffering among the greater population can be termed as maximizing good to the same population; hence, increased happiness and reduced pain.
Utilitarianism lies in the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. “Do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Mill, 2005, P. 12). In the generic perspective, individual actions towards others ought to depict how others should act if they were to reciprocate on similar lines. Generating happiness entails both maximizing good to the greatest population and minimizing suffering in the same population. Humanity ought to be governed by love. If love for others measured similar to love towards self, everyone would generate happiness and reduce suffering. The two objectives of the doctrine cannot be analyzed separately rather co-jointly through a complex interplay of beliefs and ethical considerations.
The interplay is evident from the activities conducted by members of the Unites States Congress. Both members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are elected to end suffering in the community in both the political, economic, and social spheres in addition to establishing bills and implementing laws to generate the greatest good for the greatest number. Such members are governed by ethics, with the doctrine of utilitarianism forming a significant proportion of their obligations.
As stated earlier, minimizing suffering is