John Stuart Mill 's Book, Utilitarianism

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

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.

John Stuart Mill, among other things, was an English philosopher and economist who lived from 1806 to 1873. Mill grew up being immersed in the principles of utilitarianism. Mill’s essay on utilitarianism, titled Utilitarianism, was written to debunk misconceptions of and to provide support for the ideology. Mill’s essay and argument span five chapters, where his discussions range from definitions, misconceptions, rewards, methods, and validity. Utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the “morally right action is the action that produces the most good” (Driver). Mill believed that, as humans, we have an obligation to perform the action that achieves the best or most positive result or outcome. The best consequence in the experiment, according to Mill, would be to save as many lives as possible, and that would entail Jim killing the one Indian in order to save the rest of the Indians. Saving as many lives as possible, although having to sacrifice one life, would be the best consequence because it is “considered the absolute good” (Shakil). For this reason, Mill would advise Jim to kill the one Indian. Killing one in order to save the lives of many others is the best outcome out of all the choices. One proponent of utilitarianism is consequentialism. Consequentialism is the notion that whether an action is morally right or wrong depends “entirely on its consequences. An action is right if it brings about the best outcome of the choices available” (Utilitarianism).

In the Utilitarian doctrine the consideration of pleasure and pain is constrained to ends. By this doctrine pleasure is the only thing desirable as an end and pain is the only thing undesirable as an end. Everything else is good or evil as it tends to promote pleasure or pain*. I will argue that pain should be considered as a means as well as an end and show that this is consistent with John Stuart Mill’s version of Utilitarianism. Conjoining the consideration of pain as a means and the notion of association of ideas, I will give what I hope is a unique explanation as to why higher pleasures are so often considered superior to lower pleasures. Finally I will end with a short exposition that may help to explain Mill’s mental crisis of 1826 by using the ideas advanced in this paper.

In Mill’s favour is the seemingly fundamental difference between human and animal pleasures, and ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures as an extension of this. He draws our attention to this with his assertion that we would prefer to be a “human being unsatisfied than a pig satisfied” (pp.140). This seems similar to earlier comparisons, but there is an important distinction. Mill highlights that anyone who doesn’t believe there are intrinsically more desirable higher pleasures is forced to concede it would be better to live as a beast. ‘Higher’ pleasures are an embodiment of our higher faculties and I believe that our enjoyment of these is an important marker of what makes us human. Which animal enjoys solving mathematics? Thus, as far as the distinction between human and animal pleasures, Mill’s claim seems reasonable.

Act Utilitarianism is a long standing and well supported philosophical argument that when boiled down to its most basic elements, can be described as creating “the greatest good for the greatest number” (122). Such was the sentiment of John Stuart Mill, one of act utilitarianism’s (also known as just utilitarianism) greatest pioneers, and promoters. Mills believed that his theory of always acting in a way that achieved the greatest net happiness was both superior to other philosophical theories and also more beneficial to the general public. However, as often occurs in the field of philosophy, there were many detractors to Mill’s ideas. Two specifically strong arguments are known as the doctrine of the swine, as well as man’s lack of time. While both certainly present valid arguments against Utilitarianism, neither is damning of the theory altogether.

John Stuart Mill begins the explanation of his version of Utilitarianism by replying to common misconceptions that people hold regarding the theory, and as a result describes his own theory more clearly. The main issue that Mill raises is that people misinterpret the word “utility” as in opposition to “pleasure”. However, utility is actually defined as pleasure itself and also the absence of pain.

This discussion of pleasures leads Mill to another criticism that utilitarianism has developed because of contentment not happiness. His understanding and argument for this is people who use their higher faculties are less content because they know all of the limitations in the world. He says this is in a clear example when he writes, “…better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinions, it is because they only know their side of the question” (Ch. II, Page

Throughout Philosophy, morality is a central component. Although, each scholar views the definition of morality differently, the common underlining theme is that of individuals striving to become better and think for themselves. Morality plays a big part in utilitarianism. Many philosophers have defined utilitarianism in a variety of different ways like Jeremy Bentham who believes an action is right if happiness is promoted and wrong if it reverse happiness, including but not limited to the person happiness who did the action but everyone that was affected by it (Duignan). One of utilitarianism views is the action that has the most good is the morally right action (Driver). The foundation of morality in utilitarianism comes from utility or intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). In utilitarianism, actions are evaluated by their utility instead of intrinsic properties of the actions (Skorupski 256). Utilitarianism says certain acts are right or wrong within themselves, making us perform them or avoid them entirely. On the contrary, concepts of the good go hand and hand with that of rights and obligation, causing obligation to be determined in reference to intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). John Stuart Mill’s theory of utilitarianism clearly breaks down this concept’s definition and structure by focusing on its morality, proof of validity, and connection between justice and utility in the study of thinking.

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 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?’.

As stated above, consciousness requires some form minimum of cognitive capacities, animals lack any form of cognitive capacities, leaving higher pleasures distinctively unique to human beings. The central question in the article is whether or not animals experience a form of basic consciousness, and if so, what is the content of their awareness, a question that can help us better understand them, their way of life, and what type of pleasures they experience. Referring back to Mill's Utilitarianism, Mill argues that higher pleasures are more desirable and more valuable than lower pleasures. Utilitarian writers, in general, agree that higher pleasures are superior to lower pleasures because they place an emphasize on mental pleasures over bodily pleasures. And in general, Utilitarian writers agree that although you can enjoy more lower pleasures, you cannot consider quality alongside quantity; the level of your happiness should depend on the quantity of your pleasures.

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

In Mill’s “Utilitarianism” he brings up a response that some have to the principles of Utilitarianism. The response is an objection to the Utilitarian moral theory. The objection that Mill recounts is that the people who do not agree with the Utilitarian moral theory say that Utilitarianism suggests that human beings are like swine. The argument for this idea is that Utilitarianism is about the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain. So with this in mind, those against the Utilitarianism say that then it would be morally right to live life as a satisfied pig which seems very absurd. An example of this concept would be with drug addicts. The objectors believe that Utilitarianism says that it is morally right to live life

One of the first misconceptions of Utilitarianism that Mill addresses is that it is often interpreted as the opposition of pleasure. Mill corrects this falsehood by stating the following: “Those who know anything about the matter are aware that every writer, from Epicurus to Bentham, be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain; and instead of opposing the useful to the agreeable or the ornamental, have always declared that the useful means these, among other things” (Mill, 2007, p. 5). Utilitarianism is, in