Mill's Utilitarianism Theory
Our morality, which is what, is right and what is wrong is based on our decisions and actions we make each and every day. Unlike animals that rely solely on instinct alone, we as human beings have the ability to make our own decisions based upon our beliefs. You have to ask yourself what is more important to you, is it morally right to pleasure the masses even if it causes harm to some people which is Mills Utilitarianism theory or do you do what is logically and morally right according to universal law like Kant’s deontological theory. In Bernard Williams experiment against Utilitarianism Jim is put in a very difficult situation with only two options and can either not kill any of the Indians or kill one of them himself. In this scenario their
…show more content…
This is going to have the best outcome possible but requires him to commit something immorally wrong. Ultimately he is causing the most happiness to more people by allowing ninety Indians to live and go back to their families which would have also be affected has they died. Now only one family will suffer with the loss of a loved one instead of ninety families but now has to live with his action the rest of his life. As far as utility goes it is obvious that it is better to kill one Indian than to have nineteen dying but now who gets killed is the question. According to Mill principle of unity is what is right and wrong is determined by its usefulness or what creates the most happiness. If Jim was going to kill someone the most ideal situation would be, the village elder volunteering to be killed. His theory is known as the “greatest happiness theory,” what makes an action “good” or “moral” is if it causes the most happiness, which in this case, ninety Indians living and one dying versus all of them dying. In utilitarianism an action is good even if it involves killing a man as long as more people are happy than sad. Even if Jim has to live with blood on his hands the rest of his live a utilitarian would say that it would be selfish to only think about how you’re going to feel and not the ninety Indians and their
This is going to have the best outcome possible but requires him to commit something immorally wrong. Ultimately he is causing the most happiness to more people by allowing ninety Indians to live and go back to their families which would have also be affected has they died. Now only one family will suffer with the loss of a loved one instead of ninety families but now has to live with his action the rest of his life. As far as utility goes it is obvious that it is better to kill one Indian than to have nineteen dying but now who gets killed is the question. According to Mill principle of unity is what is right and wrong is determined by its usefulness or what creates the most happiness. If Jim was going to kill someone the most ideal situation would be, the village elder volunteering to be killed. His theory is known as the “greatest happiness theory,” what makes an action “good” or “moral” is if it causes the most happiness, which in this case, ninety Indians living and one dying versus all of them dying. In utilitarianism an action is good even if it involves killing a man as long as more people are happy than sad. Even if Jim has to live with blood on his hands the rest of his live a utilitarian would say that it would be selfish to only think about how you’re going to feel and not the ninety Indians and their