George Mill's Theory Of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. This identifies it within a framework of regarding the morality of an action being guided by the consequences it produces. The normative morality of utilitarianism places its locus of the rightfulness of an action being that which produces the most happiness and the least of pain. The action of wrongfulness is that which is adverse, produces a higher result of pain and less of happiness. This is the standard central foundation of this theory. The mentioned normative theory of ethics is as coined by Jeremy Bentham, in his founding of utilitarianism. However, George Mill who can be said to be a versed advocate for utilitarianism, defends the theory from common criticisms such as “What utilitarianism

A vital concept in utilitarianism plays a vital impact in expressing the notion of pleasure. It allows explanation to the perspective of the theory that consequences are to be considered according to the value of whether they are of quality or quantity. Mill points to these views being in correspondence with the natural desires or pleasures of the human being. Substantiation to this is from the view that the desires of people are based on their ability (of that which is desired) to create, maintain, or increase the state of pleasure. Mill address that the morality of utilitarianism does not lie within the realms of merely individual satisfaction. On the contrary, it puts high morality on that action which reaps greater utility (usefulness) for the surrounding community or world at large, within the given context. Furthermore, the theory hold provision of differentiation between pleasures regarded to be of higher faculty and lower faculty. A distinguishing feature that the higher faculty of pleasure would gain to that on the latter is the desire which one would commit to regardless of the presence of discomfort. (‘Utilitarianism’ Sparknotes chapter2, part1, John Stuart Mill) Practical examples to this may include those of developing and/ or the practice of noble character. This shows how one would choose to make considerable sacrifices, such as a

One of the objections which I consider to be of strength is one regarding the over flexibility of the sanction principle. The in-built nature of utilitarianism as a theory, fails to impose plausible corrective consequences to those actions which do not comply with the stipulated rules of the moral theory. Though the theory claims to not promote actions of self benefit, it fails to blatantly rebuke actions contravening general morality, by offering acceptance to such given that the justification provided corresponds with the guidelines of the theory. This objection is of collorally effect to a line of criticisms. Bernard Williams presents a reasonable flaw of the theory not being able to uphold justice and fairness. The primary basis for this is because it shows little importance to the rights of an individual in pursuit of what is supposedly good for the community. In his point he presents a case called ‘The Fat Man in the Cave’. He poses a question of whether it would be moral to blow the fat man using dynamite out of the cave hole just to create way for the rest of the people in the cave. The negative answer to this scenario proves the loophole of utilitarianism. (Bernard