John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism

In this paper, I will explain John Stuart Mill’s moral theory of Utilitarianism, what I think it means, and how it works. I will also explain the Dax Cowart case, and determine if Dax’s choice to die was morally right or wrong. In order to fully understand the implications of Dax’s decision, and to accurately determine its affect on those his decision involves, I will break down and analyze the affect of Dax’s decision for Dax, his mother, Ada, and the Doctor. Lastly, I will gather prior evidence and form a valid conclusion of whether Dax’s choice was morally right or wrong.

Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human

The utility test stems from the Utilitarian Principle where the consequences of one’s actions determine right or wrong; the ends justify the means. Utilitarian ideas primarily came to fruition in the eighteenth century as three of the most prominent utilitarian philosophers released their works within the same timeframe, all principally speaking to the greatest happiness principle. John Stuart Mill, a distinguished British philosopher of utilitarianism, once stated, “The creed which accepts as the foundations of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Specifically meaning that the only relevant actions are those producing consequences that can be derived as either good or bad (West, 2010). The purpose of one’s actions is to create a better life through the influx of happiness with the decrease of unhappiness in their surrounding environment; the best course of action to pursue is the path that manufactures the best/greatest possible outcomes.

How do we apply aged philosophies to present day problems? Like his forefather John Stuart Mill, modern thinker Peter Singer approaches moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree that selflessness can end human suffering. In addition, their views concerning the significance of consequences align; however, they conflict on the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism by accurately recognizing the discrepancy between absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also by considering the intricate concept of motive.

This work has probably received more analysis than any other work on utilitarianism available. However, I seek to do here what many others have been unable to accomplish so far. I hope to, in five paragraphs, cover each of the chapters of Utilitarianism in enough depth to allow any reader to decide whether or not they subscribe to Mill's doctrine, and if so, which part or parts they subscribe to. I do this with the realization that much of Mill's deliberation in the text will be completely gone. I suggest that anyone who seeks to fully understand Mill's work should read it at length.

In “Utilitarianism” John Stuart Mills argues that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Feasibly, the strongest argument provided by Mills postulates that happiness is the solo basis of morality, and that humans never desire anything other than happiness. Since happiness underlies our morals, then happiness is needed for morality. In this paper, I will object to this ideology because morals stand in the way of true happiness.

In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory which was created by John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill said that Utilitarianism is “doing the act that creates the most pleasure, with the least pain, for the most people.” (17.Mill.) Utilitarianism has to do with people’s happiness since Utilitarian’s see that every act you do should be creating the most pleasure for the most people. The theory of Utilitarianism does not always worry about just one single person, but worries about the greater good for all people. Utilitarian’s can see a single person as a utility if the one person is benefiting many other people. John Stuart Mill discusses a lot about humans and their pleasures and different levels of pleasure and happiness they experience. He also gives many examples of how humans seek pleasures in life. He believes that there are different levels of pleasure, which is measured by Utils. Mill also says that having desires comes with what we can see, essentially, the more we can see something the more desire we will have for it. Mill speaks strictly from a Utilitarian view point

Utilitarianism is one of the most potent and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. The essay will discuss the utilitarianism version of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. According to ( ) utilitarianism is based on achieving pleasure and avoiding pain, a system in which an action or decision would result in most benefit to the higher number of people. By happiness is intended pleasure and prevent Pain, to fully understand this theory of ideas and opinions expressed by Mill and Bentham one must study the background of these two philosophers as well. Mill was born on 20th of May 1806, in London.

Mill describes the basic moral standard of utilitarianism as "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." It means that actions are right if they provide happiness and benefits society and vice versa.

John Stuart Mill, in his Utilitarianism, turns morality into a practical problem. His moral theory is designed to help one evaluate his moral principles and senisibilites and be able to ajudicate conflictions in moral conflicts. Mill postulates that actions are right so far as they tend to promote happiness and minimize pain. This theory manifests itself as an impartial promotion of happiness. Morally "right" actions are ones which promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number number of people and reduce pain. Utilitarian moral theories need to be coupled with theories of well-being, so that we can point to what is being maximized through the moral theory's operation. Mill's moral theory is

Philosophy Connection 1 (to replace final) In John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, Mill defines what he calls the “greatest happiness principle,” which means “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” He then goes on by stating, “happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.” By definition, a treatable terminal disease, such as AIDS would be defined as the opposite of utility, as death by privation of medicine would be considered pure unhappiness. Bono, U2’s lead singer, is a real life example of what it means to embrace Mill’s “greatest happiness principle.”

Another principle under which proponents defend physician-assisted deaths can be seen through John Stuart Mill’s theory of utilitarianism: it is an ethically appropriate act to shorten a patient’s life even if one lacks a worthwhile future. This could maximize societal happiness as well as reaffirming an individual’s importance to society. A similar argument can be made from consistency of practice which outlines that doctors already practice passive euthanasia having accounted a patient’s future life and thus in the interests of consistency, it is not wrong to kill them. However, Daniel Callahan, in opposing physician-assisted deaths brought this view into question by stating if ‘relief of suffering is critical, why should the relief be denied

John Stuart Mill’s political philosophy is consequentialist due to the fact that utilitarianism is directly related to one’s happiness and reality in which they come to the point of being happy. Consequentialist is the philosophy that say the right moral decision produces the best consequence. An individual’s happiness is related and defined upon the ethics of morality, of an action based upon the outcome of that actions consequence. Mill defines “happiness as pleasure and the absence pain” (Mill). Thus, consequentialist and utilitarianism are directly related due to the fact the overall consequences of one’s actions are the direct result of defining both terms. At moral terms, utilitarian means to recognize that the greater good of others should be something that is sacrificed to truly meet the greater good of all people versus just one’s self. Thus, the action of making a sacrifice for others in a moral sense is creating a greater good and increase of what such happiness could be if actions were taking into account for all and not for the greater good of one’s self. In political terms, utilitarian simply means doing what is right for the people versus what the government feels is right to do. Mills would then reference that making decisions should be calculated by your pleasure. Mill’s defines utilitarianism as “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended

In “Utilitarianism,” John Stuart Mill responds to several objections to the utilitarian view, but what exactly is the utilitarianism view. Utilitarianism is the view that an action is good to the extent that it produces the greatest possible overall happiness or utility. According to Mill, utility is the pleasure itself and the absence of pain. What this means is that pleasure and the absence of pain are the only things desirable as end in themselves. It's the only things that is inherently good. A good example of utilitarianism would have to be about the Trolley Problem or to me gay rights. With gay rights, legalizing gay marriage would cause the greatest amount of happiness. Therefore, any circumstance, event, or experiences is desirable only if it for pleasure.