John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism

In the first few centuries C.E., two of the largest empires ever in the world collapsed within 100 years of each other, and in many of the same ways. Although both Rome and Han China both differed in that Han China experienced natural disasters, while Rome did not, ultimately they are more similar because their militaries played a large part in their downfall, both empires had problems defending themselves, and both were ravaged by disease and food shortages. The downfalls of Ancient Rome and Han China differed in that in Han China, the rapid population growth in earlier Han times gradually resulted in the deforestation of large areas of land. Without trees to help absorb rainfall and hold the loose soil in place, flooding and erosion occurred.

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

Another problem is one that deals with the justification of happiness. What is happiness for one person is not necessarily happiness for the other. If there were a basket of oranges given to a starving group of people, one person might be happy to have the orange because it is his favorite fruit and won’t be starving now, but one person might be deathly allergic to oranges and so he will be left starving. The intentions of one person might be to pull the victim form a burning building

Mill states that the “utility or the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in portion as they tend to promote happiness…by happiness is intended pleasure” for “pleasure and freedom are desirable ends” (Mill, 7) He talks more about the utilitarian perspective, that is, we increase the levels of happiness for others. Following this logical equation, when pleasure is achieved it increases the intensity of happiness that was intended for others which constructs man’s dignity as a caring human being. Additionally, we attain the internal pleasure that renders power.

The moral rightness and wrongness of an action is determined by how much happiness it produces in total.

Mill claims that morals find their root in Utility, otherwise called the Greatest Happiness Principle.(513) The essence of this is that actions are right in proportion to how much happiness results from them and wrong in proportion to how much they cause the reverse of it.(513) In defending this, he claims that

Immanuel Kant refers to happiness as contentment (Kant, ) whereas John Stuart Mill refers to it as the pursuit of pleasure and the absence of pain (Mill, p.7). Kant does not base his ethics on happiness. Instead, he argues that morality is based on our duty as a human (Kant, ). To do what is right for Kant is to do what is instinctually moral without giving thought to the overall happiness. On the other hand, Mill does in fact use happiness as the bases for his ethics. He proposes that actions are right if they promote overall happiness and wrong if they promote the opposite of happiness (Mill, ). In this paper, it will be argued that Mill 's views on happiness are more reasonable than those of Kant 's because happiness should be the base for ethics.

Every individual desires to be happy, it is one’s main motivation and end goal throughout their lives. Happiness in itself is good, and it brings goodness to not only that person, but also to society as a whole like a domino effect of sorts. This shows that happiness drives people to act in a way of goodness, which can be measured by morality. In truth, everyone desires the general happiness. Every single individual and living creature wants to have a happy life, rid of pain.

Mill also states that an existence with the possibility of happiness must be “…to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation (234)”. Utilitarianism not only focuses on the attainment of happiness, but the prevention of pain and unhappiness. (230)

For utilitarian philosophers, happiness is the supreme value of life. John Stuart Mill defines Utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle 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 pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and privation of pleasure” (Mill, Utilitarianism). This meaning that utilitarianism is determined by the calculation of happiness, in which actions are deemed to be good if they tend to produce pleasure, a form of happiness. On the contrary, they are evil if they tend to promote pain. Not only does Mill regard to the end product of happiness in actions, but also considers the motives of such actions. In his argument, Mill defends the idea that happiness as the underlying basis of morality, and that people desire nothing but happiness.

Aristotle argues that virtue, which is a trained faculty of habit, leads to happiness. This follows that the act of choosing a thing that makes a person good results in happiness. Equilibrium and moderation of virtues lead to happiness and contemplation, which involves discovering, and refining virtues assist individuals to be happy. In contrast, Mill provides that moral actions promote the achievement of happiness. Actions are right if they tend to promote happiness and wrong if they produce pain or suffering. Mill notes that the achievement of virtuous living can be considered happiness.

John Stuart Mill establishes a foundation of utilitarianism to justify our actions regarding morality. Our actions; good or bad, tend to promote human happiness or unhappiness. When referring to good actions, for example, they tend to be rewarded with pleasures. When one does a good deed that person feels positive about themselves and therefore they are experiencing pleasure.

For this essay this paper will be discussing the subject of moral behaviour and if it is necessary for happiness. The view that this paper will reflect and focus on is that “moral” behaviour is not absolutely necessary to be happy. To fully comprehend the topic in question we must look at the definitions of morality and happiness. Moral behaviour is subjective in the sense that what may seem right to one person may not seem right to another. Happiness is also entirely subjective due to the fact that what can make one or some people happy might not be the case for others. Examples will be given to demonstrate the fact that moral behaviour is not necessary for happiness. To be blunt the matter of the fact is that there are many people out

The pursuit of pleasure has also been condemned by critics as being little more than the promotion of one’s own interests, with no regard to the happiness of others. Mill disputes this as being narrow-minded, clarifying that the pleasure principle which forms the foundation for utilitarianism, “what is right in conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned” (Mill 16). With this acknowledgment, however, comes the criticism that people cannot possibly be motivated by something as satisfying the collective good of society. Mill countered this by pointing out, “The utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others” (Mill 16). To the objection that pleasure is an acceptable end is contrary to Christian principles because it is “godless,” Mill states, “If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other” (Mill 21).

Morality has been a term of debate for several years by intellectuals who have not come to the final conclusion of its definition. According to Damon (5), morality is an existing, multifaceted construct that may not be pinned down by any single definitional criteria which is flexible. The moral character has long been associated with happiness which is that state of having achieved one's desires although there are some disconnections. Several theories have been forwarded in connection to morality and happiness as far as the society is concerned. In this argumentative paper we shall give detailed analysis of morality and happiness and whether or not moral character is a requirement to happiness.