John Stuart Mill, at the very beginning of chapter 2 entitled “what is utilitarianism”. starts off by explaining to the readers what utility is, Utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain. This leads us to another name for utility which is the greatest happiness principle. Mill claims that “actions are right in proportions as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” “By Happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by happiness, pain and the privation of pleasure”. (Mill, utilitarianism, p.697)
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory summed up by the phrase, the right action is one which creates the sum total amount of happiness for the greatest number. Therefore, utilitarians believe that morality’s purpose is to maximise the number of good things, such as happiness, and decrease the number of bad things, such as unhappiness, in the world. Critics of utilitarianism believe that this theory cannot accommodate moral rights since we go against our intuitions in moral dilemmas. However, utiltarians have a response to these criticisms which shows that utilitarianism is defensible.
Many classical philosophers have given their voice to the nature of human life and what entails its climax. The very nature of human beings has been investigated, broadly, to establish a comprehensive understanding often pegged on morality. Yet, such thoughts have prompted diverse viewpoints with accompanying grounds or reasons. Happiness is an unending topic of discussion in philosophy. This paper explores the similarities and differences in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism to coin a position in whether or not happiness is the ultimate end that human society aspires to acquire.
In the reading, "Utilitarianism," the author argues that happiness is the main criteria for morality since people base their actions off of the overall happiness it could promote (pp. 195 and 198) and that while actions differ in the quantity and quality of pleasure, pleasurable actions that require intellect are of the higher pleasures (pp. 196-197).
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).
In Mark Kingwell’s excerpt, “In Pursuit of Happiness,” he discusses the challenge of defining happiness. This work serves to inform the audience on a topic they may never have considered while using evidence and support from philosophers, authors, and even scientists to contribute to various viewpoints on the subject. At the end of the excerpt, Kingwell discusses happiness, even unhappiness, and concludes with his own opinions on the subject. Since the beginning of human existence, people have tried to define happiness, but no one has described it sufficiently, which means the search continues.
I think I will divert the train to the right killing one person because one person is less important than five. Sometimes it is important to do what is right than what is morally good to do. The utilitarianism is a moral theory that gives happiness to the number of people in the society and it has been considered greatness, an action is morally appropriate if its outcomes lead to happiness and wrong if it results in sadness. I will begin by describing what Mill might do in the Trolley situation. Next, I will contrast what Kant might do in this situation and lastly, I will be also going to give my opinion on this Trolley situation.
M. Hare’s argument, it can be seen that there exists some issues with utilitarianism. Or, simply apply utilitarianism to this world, and use utilitarianism code to make every decision is wrong since the code of utilitarianism loss consistency in real world. According to utilitarianism, the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility, or happiness. However, happiness is complex. It is generally acknowledged that people who have their physical and emotional needs satisfied and their human rights guaranteed are happy.
A man by the name of John Stuart Mill seems to be able to give us some answers to these questions. Mill starts our inquiring journey with defining what utilitarianism stands for. In short he states that it is the construction of utility, which claims that the actions that stimulate happiness in is morally fit and vice versa to be unfit. Happiness is something that we want for
By including the dictionaries definitions, the author shows contradictory explanations for happiness. In addition, using common daily facts he demonstrates how people’s decisions are based on the happiness desire, which we can see by the following words: “… it is nonetheless implicit in our decisions and undertakings, the ordering principle or end of our human projects” (413). Also, Kingwell includes words from other writers, such as John Stuart Mill, Eric Hoffer, Nathaniel Hawthorne and John Ralston Saul, to emphasize the point that the excessive pursuit of happiness causes unhappiness, which makes its definition even more confusing and
The idea behind Kantian Ethics is that doing the right thing is not about the consequences of our actions but rather the principle motivating the action. Actions must be performed out of duty, that is, it is done solely because we have an obligation to perform such action out of respect for the moral law. As explained by Immanuel Kant, “the moral worth of an action done out of duty has its moral worth” (105). Kant argues that to act morally, then, is to “act only on the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (108).
In Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents, Freud states that the definition of happiness is dependent on the individual and is influenced by choices the individual makes (Freud 54). On the other hand, in Kafka’s ¬Metamorphosis, Kafka does not explicitly state what happiness is but shows it through the life of Gregor, which allows for a single interpretation of happiness. Using Freud’s outline of happiness, one can study and understand Kafka’s interpretation of happiness from Metamorphosis and realize that both interpret happiness in the same way. Both Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents and Kafka’s ¬Metamorphosis shows that happiness can be found through love, but can be interfered by how one’s body is and from relations to other
The object of this essay is to show a simple evaluation of john Stuart mill principle “an action is right that it does not cause harm to another person” I will be exercising both evaluations and explaining why the positive side outweighs the negative side of the principle, in a society that it’s people are emancipated to control their own opinions.
Unruly Happiness In Mark Kingwell’s excerpt, “In Pursuit of Happiness,” he presents information illustrating the challenge of defining happiness. Kingwell utilizes evidence and support from philosophers, authors, and scientists to supply readers with various perspectives on the pursuit of happiness. By the end of the excerpt, Kingwell provides information about happiness, unhappiness, and concludes with his own thoughts about the failing hunt for the definition of happiness, but he never truly expresses his personal opinion about what he believes is the definition of happiness. Many strive to define happiness, but no one has described it sufficiently.
Introduction: John Stuart Mill essay on Consideration On representative Government, is an argument for representative government. The ideal form of government in Mill's opinion. One of the more notable ideas Mill is that the business of government representatives is not to make legislation. Instead Mill suggests that representative bodies such as parliaments and senates are best suited to be places of public debate on the various opinions held by the population and to act as watchdogs of the professionals who create and administer laws and policy.