Utilitarianism essay

Utilitarianism essay

Utilitarianism Essay Questions,Recent Posts

WebSep 21,  · In the history of philosophy Utilitarianism has been viewed as one of the best of the moral theories. It has become one the most powerful, influential, and most Webutilitarianism, in normative ethics, a tradition stemming from the late 18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart WebSep 2,  · Utilitarianism is a theory of morality that focuses on the principle of happiness for others. The primary focus is to bring happiness and pleasure to the WebUtilitarianism Essay Utilitarianism is a consequential perspective, in that, a decision in based on the effects it —-will have on society and what it will generally lead to. Also, the WebUtilitarianism is a philosophical view or theory about how we should evaluate a wide range of things that involve choices that people face. Among the things that can be evaluated ... read more

Philosophers behind this theory include Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, R. Hare and Peter Singer. All these philosophers evaluate morality of actions depending on overall happiness or well-being. Thus, they see utilitarianism as a consequentialist ethic. Consequentialist ethics holds that in determining whether an act, policy, rule or motive is morally right, we should check whether it has good consequences for all affected persons. Therefore, utilitarianism is an ethical theory that centers on happiness, not just the happiness of one person, but happiness of many people. Thus, the greatest happiness principle is synonymous with the principle of utility. The principle of greatest happiness states that a person should do things that will have the most happiness for all involved persons.

Critics of utilitarian ethics argue that because utilitarianism emphasizes on results, utilitarian theorists should agree that the theory of ethical relativism solves the problem of relativism. These critics claim that since utilitarian theorists argue that morality of an action depends on what the product of the action will take to all affected persons, then almost every action is moral. That is to say, utilitarianism is a consequentialistic ethic and thus, we cannot know whether an action is immoral until we see its bad consequences. Given that, utilitarian ethics in some ways holds morality of an action hostage to the result, morality of the action appears relative.

However, we refute ethical relativism since utilitarian ethics is a type of universalism, given its grounds in trust in universal human nature. Utilitarian theorists say that all people have altruistic and egoistic elements, and all people seek to evade pain and augment pleasure. Then, instead of ethical relativism, they support a liberal ethics that acknowledges there are universal principles and values. The utilitarian perspective that ethics is more inclined to our feelings and not our rationality may seem to give evidence that utilitarianism is a type of relativism. Obviously, people have different outlooks about different matters. However, description of ethics may not always be from this perspective.

Think about a cruel act such as premeditated murder. How comes that this act immoral? Is it due to societal, divine, or natural laws? The truth is that human beings cannot make the moral judgment that premeditated murder is immoral until they experience negative sentiments about such acts. If there are human beings who do not get negative sentiments after reflecting on the idea of premeditated murder, or other monstrous acts, it is because those persons have something wrong with them and thus, cannot feel others pain. Desensitization is the contemporary psychological word that describes why some people may not have feeling for the pain of others. People become desensitized making them not feel others pain. This psychological thought matches perfectly well with the utilitarian idea of sentience.

However, human nature is universal and a universal ethics rests upon nothing more than human sentiments. At the center of the utilitarian argument that shifts from the concern we physically have for our personal feelings of pain and pleasure, to others feelings of pain and pleasure, is the belief that this is the nature of human beings. When we hear about calamities happening to others, we may find ourselves flinching or grimacing. However, to go from a claim about our human nature to a moral claim that we ought to do this, and it is correct that we do this, and wrong when we fail to do this, includes an extra step in the argument. This, for instance, is a problem to any racist. If dissimilar races experience equal pleasures and pains, then how come one race sees itself as superior to another race?

If there is actually no difference between our pains and pleasures with others pains and pleasures, then we ought to, just due to consistency, view their suffering as just as significant as ours. It is clear that equality is a main concept involved in this reasoning. Hence, considering ethics along utilitarian line takes us from egoism through altruism to equality. Other critics of utilitarianism argue that it is difficult and impossible to apply its principles. Those that hold that it is difficult to apply utilitarian principles argue that calculating the outcomes for all persons is impractical due to uncertainty and the big number involved. He simply cooks for the sake of cooking, with no other purpose.

Example: While Robin may be attending college so she can get a good job and have a successful life, the end goal of those actions are driven by the sense of joy and happiness of being successful. Mill assumes that eventually if we keep asking the "why am I doing this? Premise 1 : Crucially, Mill like Aristotle assumes that there is some kind of intrinsic value all of our actions aim at. Value is not something we each determine for ourselves or something that is always extrinsic -- always dependent on other goals. Is this right? Premise 2 assumes we are ultimately driven by concern for pleasure. Are there important projects in life that ultimately end in suffering, or at the very least have goals totally divorced from pleasure?

Remember that for Aristotle , the goal of human life is to rationally pursue happiness over the course of a life. This happiness is defined by an individual's function, which is achieved by living virtuously. This leads to eudaimonia. This is different from utilitarianism. For Mill, the final end is pursuing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, no matter if it is "vicious" or "virtuous" by other standards. If some action is considered a vice by Aristotle but produces more happiness, Mill's utilitarianism would endorse that action. Aristotle also tends to focus more on the individual's development, whereas Mill is concerned with happiness overall.

But aren't some kinds of pleasure just better than others? For instance listening to jazz rather than listening to Polka music? Or getting pleasure from reading Shakespeare rather than watching silly cat videos? In this section, Mill explains that there are different levels of pleasures that ultimately weigh more less in our calculations about what to do. Epicurus was an early Greek philosopher who argued that seeking moderate pleasure is the greatest good and pathway to a good life. It is an early version of utilitarianism. Every Epicurean theory of life that we know of assigns to the pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings and imagination and of the moral sentiments a much higher value as pleasures than to those of mere sensation.

But it must be admitted that when utilitarian writers have said that mental pleasures are better than bodily ones they have mainly based this on mental pleasures being more permanent, safer, less costly and so on—i. from their circumstantial advantages rather than from their intrinsic nature. And on all these points utilitarians have fully proved their case; but they could, quite consistently with their basic principle, have taken the other route—occupying the higher ground, as we might say. It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. In estimating the value of anything else, we take into account quality as well as quantity; it would be absurd if the value of pleasures were supposed to depend on quantity alone.

What, according to you, makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, if not its being greater in amount? Pleasure P1 is more desirable than pleasure P2 if: all or almost all people who have had experience of both give a decided preference to P1, irrespective of any feeling that they ought to prefer it. A virtue ethicist like Aristotle thinks there is a philosophical difference between pleasures which are worth pursuing as valuable the pleasures that correspond with virtue and pleasures not worth pursuing because they do not contribute to virtue. For example, jazz is better than Polka, because the complexity of jazz develops our rational capacities. Polka does not.

Shakespeare develops our imagination and empathy. Cat videos on the Internet, however funny , do not. The difference between higher and lower pleasures is based on a theory of what humans need to flourish regardless of the data of what gives us pleasure. Mill thinks that different activities can be psychologically demonstrated to produce better forms of utility in us, and this is how he will distinguish jazz and polka, Shakespeare and YouTube. We can distinguish higher and lower pleasures by studying how humans experience pleasure and which activities produce more lasting pleasure or better qualities of experience.

This theory of higher and lower order pleasures helps Mill defend his overall moral theory -- that we should aim at ambitious forms of human development. The view depends on three assumptions. First we ought to aim to produce the greatest overall happiness. Second, higher order pleasures will produce more overall happiness. Third, higher order pleasures require recognition of rights, human dignity, development, etc. Now, it is an unquestionable fact that the way of life that employs the higher faculties is strongly preferred to the way of life that caters only to the lower ones by people who are equally acquainted with both and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying both.

Few human creatures would agree to be changed into any of the lower animals in return for a promise of the fullest allowance of animal pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no educated person would prefer to be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would rather be selfish and base, even if they were convinced that the fool, the dunce or the rascal is better satisfied with his life than they are with theirs If they ever think they would, it is only in cases of unhappiness so extreme that to escape from it they would exchange their situation for almost any other, however undesirable they may think the other to be.

But the most appropriate label is a sense of dignity. All human beings have this sense in one form or another, and how strongly a person has it is roughly proportional to how well endowed he is with the higher faculties. Anyone who thinks that this preference takes place at a sacrifice of happiness—anyone who denies that the superior being is, other things being anywhere near equal, happier than the inferior one—is confusing two very different ideas, those of happiness and of contentment. It is true of course that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied and thus of being contented; and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness that he can look for, given how the world is, is imperfect.

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig think otherwise, that is because they know only their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides. On a question as to which is the better worth having of two pleasures, or which of two ways of life is the more agreeable to the feelings apart from its moral attributes and from its consequences , the judgment of those who are qualified by knowledge of both must be admitted as final—or, if they differ among themselves, the judgment of the majority among them. And we can be encouraged to accept this judgment concerning the quality of pleasures by the fact that there is no other tribunal to appeal to even on the question of quantity.

What means do we have for deciding which is the more acute of two pains, or the more intense of two pleasurable sensations, other than the collective opinion of those who are familiar with both? What can decide whether a particular kind of pleasure is worth purchasing at the cost of a particular kind of pain, if not the feelings and judgment of those who are experienced in both kinds? So utilitarianism would achieve its end only through the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual got benefit only from the nobleness of others, with his own nobleness serving to reduce his own happiness. Mill also realizes that utilitarianism will be a demanding philosophy -- maximizing happiness might require personal sacrifices for the greater good.

He explains this point:. I would add something that may seem paradoxical: namely that in this present imperfect condition of the world the conscious ability to do without happiness gives the best prospect of bringing about such happiness as is attainable. For nothing except that consciousness can raise a person above the chances of life by making him feel that fate and fortune—let them do their worst! Once he feels that, it frees him from excessive anxiety about the evils of life and lets him calmly develop the sources of satisfaction that are available to him, not concerning himself with the uncertainty regarding how long they will last or the certainty that they will end.

The utilitarian morality does recognise that human beings can sacrifice their own greatest good for the good of others ; it merely refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good. The only self-renunciation that it applauds is devotion to the happiness, or to some of the means to happiness, of others…. Utilitarianism even appears in pop culture! Below is an iconic scene from the film The Incredibles. Here, Lucius Best is preparing for a dinner party with his wife. However, an attack on the city requires him to strap on his supersuit as the hero Frozone. Unable to find his suit, a short argument ensues between he and his wife. Lucius's position that saving the city is "for the greater good" aligns with Mill's thought that someone's self-sacrifice of their own happiness, such as the dinner party, is justified if it improves the overall wellbeing of society, such as saving the city.

How do utilitarians think we should balance our personal obligations to the wellbeing of society? How would you react in this situation? Mill thinks it is critical to living a morally good life that we are unbiased in our consideration of other beings' happiness. Every sentient being's potential pleasure or pain counts. This principle of equal consideration, Mill argues, is the secret to moral progress. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator. To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.

As the practical way to get as close as possible to this ideal, the ethics of utility would command two things. This is the true character of the utilitarian morality. In Mill's time, "commonsense" held that women and children experienced pain differently from adult men. Moral consideration depended on what race or class you fell into. Individuals with disabilities were discounted. The at the time radical proposal of utilitarianism is that a common ability to feel pain and pleasure unites all of us. And leading a philosophical life means basing your decisions about what to do on good reasons, rather than on preferences that you can't find good defenses for. In contemporary debates, utilitarians often find themselves debating how to appropriately extend consideration to non-human creatures.

For example, does what species you are matter for moral consideration? You might think that as long as an animal is sentient feels pleasure and pain it's pleasure and pain should count. But what about animals whose experience of the world is very different from ours, like lobsters? Mill thinks that concern for reason ought to push us to more and more allow unbiased utility calculations to guide our decisions. He does not explicitly consider animal suffering, but does consider how important utilitarian reasoning can be in making more rational policy decisions. One question raised is whether utilitarianism is a better ethic for political deliberations or for individual moral decision making. And what could the difference be? Let us now look at actions that are done from the motive of duty, in direct obedience to the utilitarian principle: it is a misunderstanding of the utilitarian way of thinking to conceive it as implying that people should fix their minds on anything as wide as the world or society in general.

The great majority of good actions are intended not for the benefit of the world but for parts of the good of the world, namely the benefit of individuals. the legitimate and authorised expectations of anyone else. According to the utilitarian ethics the object of virtue is to multiply happiness; for any person except one in a thousand it is only on exceptional occasions that he has it in his power to do this on an extended scale, i. to be a public benefactor; and it is only on these occasions that he is called upon to consider public utility; in every other case he needs to attend only to private utility, the interest or happiness of some few persons.

The only people who need to concern themselves regularly about so large an object as society in general are those few whose actions have an influence that extends that far. But the amount of regard for the public interest implied in this kind of thought is no greater than is demanded by every system of morals, for they all demand that one refrain from anything that would obviously be pernicious to society; so there is no basis here for a criticism of utilitarianism in particular. Utilitarianism is famous infamous? for giving a decisive answer to one of the more famous thought experiments in tradeoff ethics -- The Trolley Problem.

Watch the video explaining it. Would you pull the lever? How would a utilitarian reason about the dilemma? Apply the Greatest Happiness Principle and Principle of Equal Consideration to give an argument for or against pulling the lever. Would a utilitarian think you are morally responsible for the deaths if you walk away and do not pull the lever? You might worry that utilitarianism encourages us to always go for happiness now, rather than making sacrifices for more long-term dreams. But Mill thinks that the Greatest Happiness Principle should still encourage us to pursue the greatest happiness over time, which might involve also pursuing many instrumental non-happiness-based goals. Mill argues that simply because happiness is the end goal of all actions does not preclude other reasons or motivations for those same actions.

For instance, while Elizabeth's ultimate motivation to become a gymnast is the happiness she receives from the activity, her individual goals of earning an income, maintaining peak physical fitness, and achieving stardom are also valuable. Mill's argument is simply that they are secondary principles to the primary motivator that is happiness. Because they are rational creatures, sailors go to sea with the calculations already done; and all rational creatures go out on the sea of life with their minds made up on the common questions of right and wrong, as well as on many of the much harder questions of wise and foolish. And we can presume that they will continue to do so long as foresight continues to be a human quality.

Discuss the most significant theoretical break between Mill's utilitarianism and Bentham's utilitarianism. Mill's utilitarianism distinguishes two classes of pleasures: those baser pleasures which we share with animals, and those higher, virtuous pleasures which are unique to humans. Bentham makes no such distinction. One result of this distinction is that Mill's theory allows for more qualitative stratification of utility than Bentham's does. Describe the brief critique Mill makes of Kant. How does this perspective factor into Mill's overall moral philosophy? In Chapter I, Mill contends that Kant's categorical imperative, interpreted solely as a logical construct, permits a range of actions that span what we understand both as moral and immoral.

His broader point, which paves the way for his treatise, is that deontological modes of ethics are ultimately dependent upon consequentialist considerations of utility. Suppose a trolley problem is posited as follows: a trolley will hit and kill a president unless it is diverted to a track where five construction workers will be in its path. Use the problem as a model to describe different interpretations of utilitarian ethics. An act utilitarian would seek the greatest net happiness in this particular event. However, considerations of scope could change the actual choice. If the pleasure and pain of the people on the tracks comprises the entire ethical universe, then the trolley ought not to be diverted, because the lives of five are greater than the lives of one - with no account taken for societal status.

However, if the scope of the ethical universe consists of the country or world, then the capacity of the president to effect pleasure as well as the potential pain of his death most probably would lead to the decision to divert the train, killing the five workers. A rule utilitarian, in contrast, might be inclined to not divert the trolley by reasoning that the president, by actively arbitrating over people's right to live, would set a precedent leading to by far the greatest eventual pain and privation of pleasure. Describe the difference, according to Mill, between the concepts of utility and expedience. Why does he stress this distinction in his treatise? Mill sees the conflation of the concept of utility with the concept of expedience as a major misconception that uninformed people make in dismissing utilitarianism.

Expedience is the principle of doing that which most promotes your own pleasure and prevents pain from befalling you, and as such is akin to egoism; utility, on the other hand, refers to a holistic calculation of what action yields the most net happiness and prevents the most pain, thereby taking all participants' pleasure and pain into consideration. Describe Mill's critique of Epicureanism and how it informs his theory of utilitarianism. Mill utilizes a subtle, brief discussion of Epicureanism to pave the way for his own model of utilitarianism. He breaks the analysis into two parts: the common misconception of Epicureanism, and the actual shortcoming of Epicureanism. The misconception that leads people to wrongly take offense to Epicureanism is the notion that the Epicurean emphasis on pleasure as a central value does not distinguish the pleasure of animals from the pleasure of humans; people therefore take offense to being equated to senseless animals.

Mill denies that any Epicurean model actually fails to distinguish animal pleasures from the higher human pleasures of the intellect and sentiments, but he does critique it and other utilitarian views e. Bentham's for distinguishing these higher and lower pleasures only by intensity and duration. This paves the way for Mill's own view that higher and lower pleasures ought to be distinguished by intrinsic value and kind. How does Mill resolve the concern of utilitarianism not accounting for the principle of virtue? Mill argues that virtue, initially a means for effected general happiness, can become an end unto itself by people deriving happiness from the very concept.

In this way, striving towards virtue is compatible with Mill's utilitarian framework. Mill believes that any two sources of happiness should be qualitatively evaluated by ascertaining the general consensus from people who have experienced both pleasures intellectual and base as to which is preferable. This is one of the parts of the underlying framework of Mill's theory that most leads to its overall democratic tone. How would Mill answer the charge that utilitarianism just leads people to act selfishly in the name of pleasure? Mill would argue that the person making this charge is conflating expediency and utility. People acting egoistically are not acting as utilitarianism demands, because the Greatest Happiness Principle does not privilege the agent in regards to the directionality of happiness generated by acts.

Mill believes that moral theory must not only resonate with our moral intuitions, but should also be compatible with analysis within the framework of our other fundamental sentiments. Mill argues that utilitarianism is supported by our social sentiments and desire for unity and harmony with humanity and sentient beings in general. Mill sees the moral mandates from which the principles of justice largely emanate as stemming from considerations of utility. By this view, moral rights are the result of the practical theory bent towards affecting the greatest happiness and least pain. The Question and Answer section for Utilitarianism is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel. In response to the objection that his theory is too demanding, what does Mill distinguish between?

One objection to Utilitarianism is seen in the question, "What if by killing one man, you can stop the deaths of twenty? What is the plot of Utilitarism? Utilitarianism explained Mill's treatment of the moral theory which was responsible for much of his philosophy. Utilitarianism- a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the Mill replies to the objection that people see virtue as an end by saying. Mill addresses the argument that the most virtuous people in history are those who have renounced happiness. He admits this is true, and he admits that there are martyrs who give up their happiness. However, Mill argues that martyrs must sacrifice Utilitarianism study guide contains a biography of John Stuart Mill, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

Utilitarianism essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill. Remember me. Forgot your password? Buy Study Guide. Chapter please? Objection by who? A specific person? Study Guide for Utilitarianism Utilitarianism study guide contains a biography of John Stuart Mill, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis. About Utilitarianism Utilitarianism Summary Character List Glossary Themes Read the Study Guide for Utilitarianism…. Essays for Utilitarianism Utilitarianism essays are academic essays for citation. Mill's Adopted Stance: Is Act or Rule Utilitarianism Better?

View our essays for Utilitarianism…. Wikipedia Entries for Utilitarianism Introduction Summary Influence References Bibliography View Wikipedia Entries for Utilitarianism….

Utilitarianism Essay,Defining Utilitarianism

WebMill's utilitarianism distinguishes two classes of pleasures: those baser pleasures which we share with animals, and those higher, virtuous pleasures which are unique to humans. WebUtilitarianism Essay Utilitarianism is a consequential perspective, in that, a decision in based on the effects it —-will have on society and what it will generally lead to. Also, the WebSep 21,  · In the history of philosophy Utilitarianism has been viewed as one of the best of the moral theories. It has become one the most powerful, influential, and most WebSep 2,  · Utilitarianism is a theory of morality that focuses on the principle of happiness for others. The primary focus is to bring happiness and pleasure to the WebUtilitarianism is a philosophical concept that holds an action to be held right if it tends to promote happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians define the morally right Webutilitarianism, in normative ethics, a tradition stemming from the late 18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart ... read more

People acting egoistically are not acting as utilitarianism demands, because the Greatest Happiness Principle does not privilege the agent in regards to the directionality of happiness generated by acts. Consequences alone would not yield a right action. His version of was that aggregate pleasure after deducting suffering of all involved in any action. Using my moral intuition I view abortion as being murder and would categorize myself as being pro-life. Mill believes that any two sources of happiness should be qualitatively evaluated by ascertaining the general consensus from people who have experienced both pleasures intellectual and base as to which is preferable. Essay Samples Writing Help.

Utilitarianism Essay. Deontology Immanuel Kant Utilitarianism, utilitarianism essay. How does this perspective factor into Mill's overall moral philosophy? Why do utilitarianism essay choose burritos for dinner rather than wheat bran? It dictates that the best course of action is the one that benefits majority.