George Mill's Theory Of Utilitarianism

Deontology and Utilitarianism are similar in that the tenets of each aims at promoting the well-being of others by doing good. However, there are several differences between Deontology and Utilitarianism. Deontology focuses on the moral intention of an act.

The actions that have the best consequences and thus permissible can sometimes be unjust. Conscience is the decisive sanction for the principle of utility. Mill suggested that every human possesses a natural sentiment of concerning others’ welfare. When such natural sentiment is encouraged, other people’s pleasure would become our standard of moral judgment. 8

In this essay, I will show that Immanuel Kant is wrong to think that the only good without limitation is the good will. My first step in defending this thesis will be to review Kant ’s argument about how the good will is intrinsically good. I will then try to undermine his view by showing it supports implausible claims. For example, the premise of Kant’s claim is that good will is unconditioned.

Pursuing one 's own happiness at the expense of social happiness would not be moral under this framework. One of Mill 's replies to oppositions about utilitarianism is that the given analysis is not distinctive to utilitarianism, that any ethical theory would have such limitations. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this tactic? Does it really satisfy Mill 's stated objective, to dispel misconceptions about his theory?

Nonconsequentialism came from the work of Immanuel Kant, who is known to be the founder of critical philosophy. Markham (2007) described Kant as ‘the giant in philosophy’. Through his research and work, Immanuel Kant labelled himself a deontologist. According to Markham (2007), a deontologist is ‘a person who recognises that there are absolute moral prohibitions that must be applied consistently to all situations’. Different from consequentialism, people who tend to have the mind set of a deontologist believe that you should do your ethical duty, regardless of the outcome.

As per this theory the outcome of any action should minimize the pain and maximize the pleasure. The utilitarianism have two groups one is the Act utilitarian’s focun on the effects of individual actions (Such as Nathuram Godse’s assassination of Mahatma Gandhi) and another is rule utilitarian’s those focus on the effects of types of actions (such as killing or stealing) Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). They reject moral codes or systems that consist of commands or taboos that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders

As mentioned above the importance of reason to Hume is marginal and accessory in his moral theory. The fundamental role goes on the other hand for passions. In fact because we have these passions we need to satisfy them so we invert to institutions which are artifacts that help us provide a regular and secure supply of impressions for our desires. Example, If someone is attached to a belonging, the passion that correspond to this attachment is called avidity, and the institution securing this belonging is called justice. It is the passion that is then at the origin of an institution and all correlative values.

Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.

This is supposed to allow us to determine which action has the most benefits or lower total costs and is therefore moral. On the other hand, under the rule utilitarianism, we look at individual acts to see whether they produce more pleasure than the alternatives. If the actions produce more pleasure or have lower costs, then they are the moral types of actions. Rule utilitarianism’s basic strategy is to limit utilitarian analysis to the evaluation of moral rules. Theorists came up with the rule utilitarianism as a response to different concerns critics had about utilitarianism.

The second part is the actual principle of utility. The principle of utility is used to help make moral decisions. Mill’s account of utility is based on the overall happiness of the majority. Mill states that, “it is by no means an indispensable condition to the acceptance of the utilitarian standard; for that standard is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest happiness of altogether” (Mill Chapter 2,7). Producing the greatest amount of happiness in the greatest number of people is Mill’s qualitative measurement on an account of

He provides arguments and conclusions regarding utilitarianism that fails to respect the inherent dignity of the individuals. The framework of this point of view is strongly flawed because Sandel does not take into account that while it might seem contradicting to choose the vote

He believes that the pleasure or pain a person feels is directly related to whether or not the action was right or wrong (Bentham, 39). This means that an action is right when it causes the greatest pleasure for the person or group of people who are involved. If there is a group of people and a certain action would benefit the majority of them for good, then it would be considered to be the right action. On the other hand, if the action does not benefit the majority and only benefits a few, then it would be considered to be wrong. The ultimate goal of this theory is to bring happiness to those involved and to also prevent evil and unhappiness within the group (Bentham, 39).