Utilitarianism Essay Essay

August 30, 2017 Communication

Utilitarianism is a theory in moralss sing actions that maximize public-service corporation. Utilitarianism is human- centered and has a foundation of morality. One could state this theory holds to happiness as the rule. at least that is what John Mill proposes. Mills is good known for being non merely a great philosopher of his clip. but besides an advocator for utilitarianism. in so much that Mills believed and even improved upon Bentham’s positions. John Stuart Mill was the most celebrated and influential British philosopher of the 19th century ( Clark. 2003 ) .

Mill felt that the foundation of ethical motives. “utility” or the greatest felicity rule. holds actions are right in a certain proportion because they tend to advance felicity ; and incorrect because they produce merely the antonym of felicity. Happiness is pleasance. with the absence of hurting ; sadness. peers hurting and the absence of pleasance. Mill felt that higher pleasances are more valuable than lower 1s and besides better ( Peck. 2006 ) . Pleasure to Mill’s differs in quality and measure. Mill felt that a person’s accomplishments and ends such as virtuous life should be recognized as a portion of their felicity.

Mill believed that felicity is the lone footing of morality. and that felicity is the lone thing people genuinely desire. Mill’s take on justness was that it is based on public-service corporation and felicity and that rights merely exist because they are necessary for a person’s felicity ( Peck. 2006 ) . When speech production of qualitative and quantitative utilitarianism there are differences within the two. They both measure the value of different degrees of felicity ( Ringing. 2010 ) . Qualitative utilitarianism entails that mental pleasances are different and besides superior to physical pleasances. Quantitative utilitarianism entails that all types of felicity are equal or the same.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

In quantitative utilitarianism what matters most is the measure or sum of felicity. non what type ( Ringing. 2010 ) . When speech production of Mills and his attack one would necessitate to see the strengths and failings of what Mills proposes. The strengths of Mills attack to utilitarianism would be the fact of the lone thing of substance or that affairs is what happens in one’s life regardless of the purposes ( Qizilbash. 2006 ) . One failing would be the proposal that one’s purposes do Runing caput: UTILITARIANISM ESSAY 1 non affair or keep any significant reverberations.

One’s purposes can hold a really negative affect on themselves but more of import on other’s particularly guiltless by standers. One’s purposes could be of extreme importance to the good of the bulk. Another strength of Mills attack is the fact that Mill considers emotions a signifier of great pleasance ( Qizilbash. 2006 ) . This point of the theory shows some nonpartisanship. Mills besides mentions general regulations. which in bend would let for the usage of cosmopolitan regulations. and this is a strength for certain. In Mills approach one more failing would be the ability for one to foretell the result or effects.

More failings than strengths exist in Mills attack. for case. to acquire the greatest good for the greatest figure can sometimes do the simplest of actions become immoral- for case purchasing something for oneself that is non needfully needed but none the less something desired. but if that money spent could hold been spent elsewhere and been more good to a greater figure of people so one is considered immoral or acting immoral. Another failing in Mills attack is a competent individual will ever pick a higher pleasance over a lower one ( Qizilbash. 2006 ) yet this is neither executable nor true in all state of affairss.

And the major failing in Mills theory is the premise that one should prosecute something merely because it is desirable and produces pleasance. this can hold many negative effects. Thought experiments have been used in every field from mathematics to doctrine. In this thought experiment four people play a inquiry and reply game.

There is a mark rewarded for each correct reply. and at the terminal of the game the two highest hiting people will acquire the opportunity to walk off with either a big sum of hard currency for themselves. half of the hard currency or unluckily empty handed. In this peculiar game one will make up one’s mind to portion and split the hard currency. or be greedy and seek to walk off with all of the hard currency. but there is that opportunity of walking off with nil.

Imagine one chooses portion and the other chooses keep. so the 1 who chose keep gets it all. if both choose portion so the hard currency will be divided equally and both benefit. after Runing caput: UTILITARIANISM ESSAY 1 all they both worked every bit towards this chance. But if both choose support. they will both walk off empty handed with nil.

In this thought experiment we will presume that both people chose portion. sing this is the lone certain manner of walking off with at least half of the hard currency. This experiment would support Mills version of utilitarianism on one manus because both people have done what is best for the greater good ( Clark. 2003 ) so what works for the whole and is better for all involved is best.

But when sing Mills portion of the version that speaks to one ever taking the higher pleasance over the lower 1 ( Qizilbash. 2006 ) this scenario would critique- the higher pleasance would hold been winning all of the hard currency for oneself. non holding to portion it and one knows that this is what each individual desired. what would give them each much more pleasance. but alternatively they went for a lower zone of pleasance when make up one’s minding to at least walk away with some instead than no hard currency. In this experiment one can state it defends and reviews Mill’s because Mill’s was beliing in his attack and positions.

Mill was known to better Bentham’s positions. and non hold with them. but yet Mill leans towards Bentham’s positions in a batch of his attack to utilitarianism. Mentions Clark. K. J. . & A ; Poortenga. A. ( 2003 ) .

The narrative of moralss. Upper Saddle River. New jersey: Prentice Hall. Peck. L. A. ( 2006 ) . A “Fool Satisfied” ? Journalists and Mill’s Principle of Utility. Runing caput: UTILITARIANISM ESSAY 1 Journalism & A ; Mass Communication Educator. 61 ( 2 ) . 205-213 Qizilbash. M. ( 2006 ) . Capability. Happiness and Adaption in Sen and J. S. Mill. Utilitas. 18 ( 1 ) . 20-32. doi:10. 1017/SO953820805001809 Ring. L. . Gross. C. R. . & A ; McColl. E. ( 2010. June ) . Puting the text back into context: toward increased usage of assorted methods for quality of life research. Quality of Life Research. pp. 613-615. Department of the Interior: 10. 1007/S11136-010-9647-z.

x

Hi!
I'm Amanda

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out