Sandel's Two Objections To Utilitarianism

Consequentialism is defined as the actions that should be more evaluated on the basis of the consequences. However, it’s the results from that particular consequence that actually strikes a nerve. In the mindset of utilitarian’s consequences focus on the happiness and pleasure of that particular end result. The understanding that the consequences are so good that it outweighs the negativity; maximizing happiness for all. However, for people such as Bernard Williams we shouldn’t regard consequences as happiness or pleasure for the multitude of people, but rather the happiness within ourselves.

Bernard Williams’ essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, launches a rather scathing criticism of J. J. C. Smart’s, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian ethics. Even though Williams claims his essay is not a direct response to Smart’s paper, the manner in which he constantly refers to Smart’s work indicates that Smart’s version of Utilitarianism, referred to as act-Utilitarianism, is the main focus of Williams’ critique. Smart illustrates the distinction between act-Utilitarianism and rule-Utilitarianism early on in his work. He says that act-Utilitarianism is the idea that the rightness of an action depends on the total goodness of an action’s consequences.

In other words, the doctrine of swine states that if humans have the solely purpose of pursuing pleasure, then, they have the same purpose in life as pigs. However, Mill opposes the doctrine of swine by arguing that animals and humans have different definitions and ranks of pleasure; therefore, it is erroneous to compare a human’s ability to quantify and qualify pleasure, as that of a pig’s. Finally, following Mill’s idea of Utilitarianism, being a corrupt politician would only provide me with small pleasures, which is morally incorrect and would make hedonism a “doctrine of

The context of the paper is discussion of why utilitarianism is consistently appealing. As Foot

John Stuart Mill attempts to defend the principle of utility is relation to the principle of justice in Utilitarianism; this defense seeks to explain how utility and justice coincide and not conflict. I find the principles of Utilitarianism conflicting with some principles of justice due to the tensions between utility and justice, but overall agree that justice cannot function without utility. I agree that the principle of utility can be applied in the social sphere and justice but I see the tensions that justice can have with utility. These tensions are developed through the accepted belief of rights, which often are seen as inviolable.

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).   One of the author’s main reasons to support his view is that morality is determined by what increases or decreases the overall amount of utility (pp. 197). Mill denounces the view of utilitarianism as a selfish, unsympathetic ideology by stating that it could only be best used if everyone could promote utility, and he uses the Greatest Happiness Principle, in which he explains that actions

Utilitarianism holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong in proportion that they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined by pleasure and the absence of pain, and unhappiness is defined by pain and the lack of pleasure (Mill, 5). Pleasure and the lack of unhappiness are the only two aspects that are desirable as ends and inherently good. A significance in Mill’s definition of utilitarianism is what it is not. It is not psychologically measurable on a same scale but has different qualities and that those with more experience can determine what pleasures are higher than others.

In the textbook, there was an example of how some men will choose the more sensual pleasure over their health knowing that their health is the higher pleasure. Mills believes that it is impossible for people to actually choose the lower pleasure just because. He states that he believes that “before they devote themselves exclusively to the one, they have already become incapable of the other.” This means that he believes that someone chose a lower pleasure because they are incapable or blocked off from the higher pleasure. No one choose the lower pleasure voluntarily.

Utilitarianism is a very controversial theory. Many people disagree with this idea because it disrupts our personal relationships, it is too demanding, it promotes that the consequences are the only thing that matters, and shows that pleasures are the only things that are important. Classical Utilitarianism is based on three points; that morality of actions are only bases on consequences, the consequences only matter if it creates more or less happiness, and everyone gets equal considerations when it comes to happiness. The classical Utilitarianism was made and defended by three philosophers from 19th century England; John Mill, Jeremy Bentham, and Henry Sidgwick. These people help this theory to be highly influential in the modern era.

In Defense of Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill In the excerpt from John Stuart Mill’s book, Utilitarianism, Mill defends the utilitarian theory against three different objections. The first, and strongest opposition to utilitarianism was the accusation that the emphasis on the pursuit of pleasure makes utilitarianism “a doctrine worthy of swine.” This was my favorite argument because Mill defended it so well stating that there are varying degrees of pleasure. He refers to them as “high” and “low” pleasures, which I do agree with.

Utilitarianism is the moral theory that the action that people should take it the one that provides the greatest utility. In this paper I intend to argue that utilitarianism is generally untenable because act and rule utilitarianism both have objections that prove they cannot fully provide the sure answer on how to make moral decisions and what will be the ultimate outcome. I intend to do this by defining the argument for act and rule utilitarianism, giving an example, presenting the objections to act and rule utilitarianism and proving that utilitarianism is untenable. Both act and rule utilitarianism attempt to argue that what is right or wrong can be proven by what morally increases the well being of people. Act utilitarianism argues that

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

The hedonic calculus has seven different criteria that must be considered to evaluate the balance between good and evil. This appears practical and easy to use in any situation; however, it has its issues. For example, Bentham suggested that all pleasure and pain should be measured equally. This causes a major problem when put into the context of business ethics, as it suggests that the pain experienced by a child forced to work in a factory is equal to a shareholder in a business gaining a little more profit – surely, this is unethical. J.S. Mill noticed this issue, introducing rule utilitarianism, in which he recognised the differences in different types of pleasures.

1. Utilitarianism Philosopher View (Jeremy Bentham & John Mill) Utilitarianism theory was founded by Jeremy Bentham and then got expanded by John Mill who came up with the 2 types or forms of Utilitarianism which are Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism says an action is right if it tends to promote happiness, and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness and doesn’t just involve the happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone affected by it.

The main principle of utilitarianism is happiness. People who follow this theory strive to fulfill the “ultimate good”. The “ultimate good” is defined as ultimate pleasure with out any pain. It is said that the pleasure can be of any quantity and any quality, but pleasures that are weighted more important are put at a higher level than others that are below it. This ethical theory also states that if society would fully embrace utilitarianism then people would naturally realize their moral standing in the