John Stuart Mill's 'Utilitarianism' Ethics Is False?

864 Words4 Pages
Utilitarianism Ethics is False
The utilitarian approach to ethics builds on the premise that the end justifies the means. It asserts that social actions such as punishment are ethical as long as they make society a better place. According to utilitarianism, society must take all actions possible to stamp out antisocial acts such as crimes. Hence, a criminal is punished to rid society of his acts. However, in reality, it is almost impossible for society to completely wipe out crime through punishment. Nevertheless, everything worthwhile has to be done to reduce crime and make society better. Utilitarianism thus considers a means to an end, regardless of whether the means itself is bad, a true justification (Hooker, 2011). Whether bad or good, a means is justified if it helps in the achievement of socially acceptable goals.

The punitive and restrictive measures that society takes to eradicate crime could be attributed to the high rates of crime in modern society. Still, questions have to be asked on the ethicality of using quite punitive measures and restrictive institutions. Even increased recidivism has not deterred
…show more content…
Whereas some scholars regard benefits and dangers as pleasure and pain, John Stuart Mill believed that benefits and harms entails even the quality or intensity of the pleasure and pain occasioned by an action or a decision (Hooker, 2011). In modern times, utilitarian-enthusiasts study benefits and harm with reference to satisfaction of a personal preference or need. Still, some Utilitarian supporters study utilitarianism on economic or monetary value. Regardless of the approach taken, utilitarianism still faces myriad ethical questions. For instance, it is based on the need to calculate and place values to the benefits and harms associated with decisions and actions taken in various life

More about John Stuart Mill's 'Utilitarianism' Ethics Is False?

Open Document