Similarity Between Religion And Utilitarianism

Through utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill explained that the most moral action is the one that provides the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Some say this encouraged selfishness and he invited

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.

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that states something is considered to be right when it does the most good for most the most amount of people (Duignan 2015). This theory doesn’t consider the feelings of the individual; it considers the feelings of the majority (Duignan 2015). Utilitarianism is very different from relativism, which takes into account the totality of circumstances, this philosophical theory states that what is considered to be right or wrong can vary depending on people and society (Rachels 2015).

In Book 1 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that happiness is the best good, and the goal of an individual and of those leading and governing society. Here, happiness is understood as both living well and doing well, rather than the convention sense of happiness as an emotion. According to Aristotle, happiness is achieved though actions involving reason and in accord with virtue, or the best of the virtues of there are more than one. In this paper, I will provide a brief overview of the work and its author, then proceed to provide an overview of the ideas expressed and the argumentation supporting them, before finally performing an analysis and critique of the ideas expressed.

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

Therefore, happiness is the highest act of virtue because it is the only end in every action we preform. A person that preforms an action for the sake of being happy requires many steps to eventually reach the stage of happiness. When there are steps involved to reach happiness, then the action is preformed for the sake of something else and not in itself. Such as a person who wants to eat healthier because their end motive is to be happy. Therefore, the action is not preformed for the sake of just to eat healthy but to reach happiness. However, to become virtuous, a person will preform actions that make them virtuous with a firm and unchangeable character. It is a skill that is made through a habit, Aristotle states, “legislators make the citizens good by preforming habits in them”(NE, P.23), such as preforming acts of bravery. But, a brave person needs to find a balance because being too brave will lead to excess

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.

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.

Utilitarianism is focused on making this life as pain-free as possible. However, the Bible tells us that there is more to our existence than just this life on earth. If all so we live is to maximize pleasure in life, we miss the bigger picture. Jesus said that he who lives only for this life will be greatly disappointed (Matthew 6:19). The apostle Paul says that the tribulations of this life, do not compare to the glory we will receive in eternity (2 Corinthians 4:17). The things of this life are temporary and transient (v.18). Our focus should be on maximizing our glory in heaven, not our life on

Aristotle asserts that there is in fact an ultimate good in which is both complete and self-sufficient. This good is considered as happiness. Aristotle goes on to state that happiness is our highest goal because it is at which all things aim. He then states that rational activity aims at the good. Happiness is then achieved through actions which involve reason in agreement with virtue. In this paper, I will give a brief overview of Aristotle’s argument about happiness, what he considers as happiness and how it can be achieved. Then lastly I will give my objection to Aristotle’s argument.

In this essay, I will discuss the theory of happiness by Aristotle, in one of his most influential works, the Nicomachean Ethics, which is still relevant today, over 2,300 years later. For Aristotle, the key questions he set out to answer included the ultimate purpose of human existence and the end goal for which we should direct all of our activities. Everywhere we see people seeking pleasure, wealth, and a good reputation. But while each of these has some value, none of them can occupy the place of the chief good for which humanity should aim. To be an ultimate end, an act must be self-sufficient, attainable by man and final, "that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else" (Nicomachean Ethics, 1097a30-34). For Aristotle, that final good is happiness. In the first part of the essay, I will argue that we can only arrive at a clear conception of the human good and thus happiness if we ascertain the function of human being. In the second part of the essay, i will argue that happiness can also be achieved through other means that do not involve the function. I will finally conclude in favor of Aristotle’s theory of happiness.

In the text, Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, but translated and edited by Roger Crisp, a few questions stand out for consideration. “What is happiness?” “What makes me happy and why?” In this text, Aristotle examines the main factors of happiness which consists of gratification, the life of money-making, the life of action, and the philosophical life. He explains what is needed for happiness and what it means to be a truly happy human being. In his definition of

This however fundamentally goes against Utilitarianism, which states that humans are merely motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This is how an action is considered good or bad in the Hedonic Calculus, if it brings pleasure for the most people or works to avoid pain. Furthermore, Christian ethics implies that one will find happiness by modelling themselves on Jesus and adhering to the teachings of the Bible. However, in Utilitarianism it is stated that one will find the most happiness when individuals are free to pursue their own ends.

Utilitarianism is a limiting ethical theory that fails to grasp ethically reality. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is not ethically right in every situation. Although the majority would benefit, the minority will heavily suffer. Considering the overall consequences of our actions, the good may not always outweigh the bad, but this does mean that the good will be the ethically right thing to do. One may think they are “maximizing the overall good,” but in reality, harming many.

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.