Mill Utilitarianism Essay
Mill's Utilitarianism brings an extended concept of Bentham's philosophy and a response to Kant's deontological philosophy. The basic concept of utilitarianism is to act in such a way as to create the most pleasure or the least pain. This is the guideline because, as Mill states, we desire happiness; happiness is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. However, is utilitarianism viable? There are many arguments for it, but just as many against. First, utilitarianism allows for the good of all. Mills wrote, "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Because morality is based on the greatest pleasure the more people who benefit from an act, the more
…show more content…
A common example is slavery: if 95% of the population can be made happy when the other 5% is enslaved is slavery not the greatest good? Utilitarianism allows society to sacrifice the individual, or even the minority for the majority. If by speaking one lie, a person could save 4 lives than that lie would be a moral act; but if by killing one man, that same person could save 4 lives wouldn't utilitarianism find this too to be a moral act? Fortunately Mill has a response to the idea of removing an individual's rights for the good of the whole. . In chapter V of his essay he writes, "To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of." The reason for this, Mill states, is general utility. It is generally better to protect the rights of every man, because this will lead to the most happiness. However, it seems there is still a way to put society before the individual. Because the reason for protecting individual rights is general utility, if violating those rights will cause the least pain, as compared to pain for the whole society, it would be general utility to violate these rights. But perhaps it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice one for the good of
A common example is slavery: if 95% of the population can be made happy when the other 5% is enslaved is slavery not the greatest good? Utilitarianism allows society to sacrifice the individual, or even the minority for the majority. If by speaking one lie, a person could save 4 lives than that lie would be a moral act; but if by killing one man, that same person could save 4 lives wouldn't utilitarianism find this too to be a moral act? Fortunately Mill has a response to the idea of removing an individual's rights for the good of the whole. . In chapter V of his essay he writes, "To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of." The reason for this, Mill states, is general utility. It is generally better to protect the rights of every man, because this will lead to the most happiness. However, it seems there is still a way to put society before the individual. Because the reason for protecting individual rights is general utility, if violating those rights will cause the least pain, as compared to pain for the whole society, it would be general utility to violate these rights. But perhaps it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice one for the good of