Marginal Utility Vs. Utility Theory

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are known for their theories about utilitarianism. Both of them agree that the ethical right thing to do would be to maximize utility in any given situation. Yet, both of them disagree when it came to defninig pleasure. Bentham’s theory generalizes pleasure as just the same type of emotion felt by anyone and in any situation. Mill’s theory on the other hand stated that there are two different types of pleasure: the higher intellectual pleasure and the lower physical pleasure

In today 's society, we face many obstacles in our attempt to achieve the feeling of happiness. As intelligent beings, we try to solve these problems by taking the path that best benefits us. The theory of utilitarianism provides a solution to this but at what cost? What are the benefits and disadvantages of utilitarianism? Is utilitarianism an idea one should live by? What is utilitarianism? I plan on answering these questions within this paper and understand how they relate to everyday life. I will also look at arguments for and against utilitarianism. Then analyze the appealing and unappealing features to determine if utilitarianism should be followed as an absolute rule.

“The greatest good for the greatest number”; that is how the British philosopher John Stuart Mill famously summarized utilitarianism (Shafer-Landau, 2012b, p. 120). He is not only one of the greatest utilitarians, he is also a hedonist. Hence, he believed that this greatest good can be achieved by focussing all action on attaining the greatest amount of happiness. Mill describes utility as holding ‘that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness’ ((Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 17). He defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and unhappiness as pain and the privation of pleasure. Hence, Mill argues that only pleasure is intrinsically desirable and only misery intrinsically bad (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 120). All other desirable things are only desirable as means to promote pleasure or prevent pain (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 18). Therefore, in order to refute Mill’s utilitarianism, one would have to show that there is something other than pleasure or the freedom from pain that is intrinsically desirable. First, Robert Nozick’s attempt to disprove utilitarianism and hedonism in the shape of his ‘experience machine’ will be explained. Next, Mill’s arguments in favour of utilitarianism and hedonism will be recapitulated in an attempt to answer the central research question: why does Nozick’s experience

The Utilitarian Principle, or Greatest Happiness Principle (GHP) is defined as: actions are right, or good “as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Stumpf, 2015, p. 314). Happiness is defined as a ratio of “pleasure and absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (314). Bentham measured the happiness or pleasure of each individual in aggregate to determine if an action or rule is right or wrong based on weather the outcome results in achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (350). Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle is not measured in the same way that Bentham’s Utilitarian calculus measured the GHP.

John Stuart Mill introduces his assessment of Utilitarianism by stating how a standardized system in which people’s actions may be judged to differentiate between right and wrong has been minimal in progress. He expresses the misconception with the way utility is understood by the general populous and other philosophers. The struggle to lay the foundations in what constitutes as right and wrong dates longer back than 2000 years ago.

Utilitarianism states that the moral worth of an act is completely determined by its practicality in reducing negative service and exploiting utility as summed in every sentient being. The utility principle states that an act is right if it produces more pleasure of all people affected by and immoral if it doesn't. It is founded on the idea that happiness and pleasure are naturally treasured and suffering and pain are not, and that all else has value if it is generating pleasure and inhibiting happiness. In his article Marx on Utilitarianism, Ronald West states, “There are several systems of Utilitarianism, each looking to overcome the flaws within it. For example, the meaning of “the totality of human pleasure,” even when defined following Mill in terms of the maximum price someone would be ready to pay for something, is problematical. If the total mass of utility is increased while its ownership is concentrated in fewer hands, can this be deemed to be right?” (West, 3)

One concern I have about marginal utility is that reaching marginal equilibrium may not be nearly so simple as it is often made out to be. Consider the case of the cripple: If you measure marginal utility as the additional value gained for every dollar spent on him, then

In any case, customary utilitarians would preclude that an activity from securing a specific kind is dependably either right or off-base. Rather, each activity would need to be measured given its specific conditions. Utilitarian perspectives have additionally been exceedingly powerful in financial aspects. A long line of business analysts, starting in the nineteenth century, contended that monetary conduct could be clarified by expecting that individuals dependably endeavor to amplify their utility and that the utilities of products can be measured by the costs individuals will pay for them.

John Stuart Mill suggests that a person's ethical decision-making process should be based solely upon the amount of happiness that the person can receive. Although Mill fully justifies himself, his approach lacks certain criteria for which happiness can be considered. Happiness should be judged, not only by pleasure, but by pain as well. This paper will examine Mill's position on happiness, and the reasoning behind it. Showing where there are agreements and where there are disagreements will critique the theory of Utilitarianism. By showing the problems that the theory have will reveal what should make up ethical decision-making. John Stuart Mill supports and explains his reasoning in his book, Utilitarianism. Mill illustrates the

Marginal Utility by definition is the additional satisfaction a consumer gains from consuming one more unit of a good or service, which is usually positive, but can be negative. The concept implies that the utility or benefit to a consumer of an additional unit of a product is inversely related to the number of units of that product he already owns. The notion of marginal utility originated with attempts by 19th-century economists to examine and describe the economic validity of price. They believed price was partially determined by a commodity’s utility, which led to a paradox when applied to predominant price associations. This problem, commonly referred to as the

Though the terms act and rule utility came after the time of Bentham and Mill, it can still be noted that Bentham was clearly an act utilitarian and the Mill was a rule utilitarian. This paper will cover two subjects of discussion related to utility, Bentham, and Mill. The first is a consideration of the way in which Bentham goes about reconciling the ethical hedonist he promotes with the psychological egoistic hedonism he endorses. The second is really three smaller issues: the way Bentham and Mill would direct us to apply the principle of utility, how this is comparable to the employment of the hedonistic calculus, and the possibility that the differences in their views may make us come to different moral decisions.

* 2. the first glass of water has great utility for him. If he takes second glass of water after that, the utility willbe less than that of the first one. It is because the edge of his thirst has been blunted to a great extent. Ifhe drinks third glass of water, the utility of the third glass will be less than that of second and so on.The utility goes on diminishing with the consumption of every successive glass water till it drops down tozero. This is the point of satiety. It is the position of consumer’s equilibrium or maximum satisfaction. If theconsumer is forced further to take a glass of water, it leads to disutility causing total utility to decline. Themarginal utility will become negative. A rational consumer will stop taking water at the point at whichmarginal utility becomes negative even if the good is free. In short, the more we have of a thing, ceterisparibus, the less we want still more of that, or to be more precise.“In given span of time, the more of a specific product a consumer obtains, the less anxious he is to getmore units of that product” or we can say that as more units of a good are consumed, additional units willprovide less additional satisfaction than previous units. The following table and graph will make the law ofdiminishing marginal

By that, he meant by utility the balance of pleasure over pain, or happiness over suffering can be achieved. What he said is that:

Overall happiness and utility is when the most amount of pleasure is given for the least amount of pain. However, utility is only beneficial to a majority of society and can cause several others to suffer IF it is offering the best pain to pleasure ratio. Utility of a community leaves a lot of room to argue that people can be but through an unreasonable amount of pain if it offers better utility for the community. Beccaria argues that punishment that is abused or unnecessary will be ineffective in a society. Therefore, he is challenging Bentham’s view on the utility of a community. Beccaria’s view on a society is that a social contract will keep the pain to pleasure ratio at a reasonable point, while also arguing that utility to individuals is just as important. Beccaria would not agree that utility is what justifies punishment. However, he would agree that by joining a society and agreeing to the social contract theory then one is agreeing that punishment is justified.

In this paper I will present and critically assess the concept of the principle of utility as given by John Stuart Mill. In the essay “What Utilitarianism Is” #, Mill presents the theory of Utilitarianism, which he summarizes in his “utility” or “greatest happiness principle” # (Mill 89). Mill’s focus is based on an action’s resulting “happiness,” # pleasure and absences of pain, or “unhappiness,” # discomfort and the nonexistence of contentment, rather than the intentions involved (Mill 89). After evaluating Mill’s principle, I will then end this essay by discussing my personal opinion about the doctrine and how I believe it can be altered to better suit real-life situations.