Utilitarianism In John Stuart Mill (A Critical Appraisal)

Utilitarianism In John Stuart Mill (A Critical Appraisal)

General Introduction

Preface

In the history of gospel, it’s believed that the ultimate end of man is happiness and the only way that leads to( through which one achieves) similar thing is by living a moral or righteous life. Living a righteous life implies flaunting and carrying innocently right.

Accordingly, man employs laws of which its ideal is to compound the total happiness of the community as it legislates and protects the people. By the very fact that certain conduct and measures induce suffering and pain, don’t make that action to be evil or wrong. There are conduct that aren’t enjoyable yet, are considered innocently good and right. either, there are yet some other conduct that are enjoyable but are evil and wrong.

also, as a result of its simplicity and evidence of the testament of maturity, pleasure and happiness are what everyone solicitations, the gospel of utilitarianism has claimed the imaginations of( generations) men than any other way or system of thinking.

The hunt for pleasure becomes therefore, the motivating force of all the conduct of man.

nevertheless, our concern then’s to examine specific ethical proposition and its result to the central question of ethics what’s the mark for measuring the moral action of an existent; what’s the moral standard of morality? Heretofore, the moral gospel of John Stuart Mill is an attempt made or proposed as a companion to existent’s conduct. His doctrine had influence on the thinking and imagination of men; for it verified what utmost of them formerly believed as a general thesis.J.S Mill had participated his father’s as well as Bentham’s opposition to William Paley’s theological utilitarianism, ethical intuitionism, moral sense proposition of ethics,etc.

As we stressed before, each ethical system has its own view on what makes the action of individual right or wrong, good or bad. There’s no general agreement as to the content and the standard norm of morality. Mill, still, didn’t allow any appeal to contended rational suspicion. He emphasized on the consequences of geste as the criterion for what’s good rather of a regardful obedience to formal rules of conduct.

He maintained that utilitarianism gives these reasons by establishing which rules under given circumstance lead to happiness or pleasure and those that lead to unhappiness and pain. The test of a rule of conduct becomes therefore, the extent of its conduciveness to happiness while pleasure and pain, the test of right and wrong conduct. Utilitarianism, thus, as a moral proposition claims and proposes that the morality of an act consists basically of its mileage as means for attainment of happiness of man. Hence, an act is good if it’s useful in achieving pleasure and dwindling pain. John Stuart Mill sets out to prove that the topmost happiness is the sole and ultimate end of man conduct

Statement Of Problem

There have was lots of conflicts, dissensions and intolerable stations in matters of moral issues as individualities tend to repel the combined conduct demanded in a society. Indeed, from the dawn of gospel, the question concerning the “ Summum Bonum ” or “ the mark for measuring the morality of mortal conduct ” has been reckoned the main problem in academic study. It thus, gave rise to colorful sets and seminaries carrying on a vigorous warfare against one another.

The utilitarian principle is seen and has been held as the true standard of morality and utmost dependable dimension for distinguishing good conduct from the bad conduct. The virtuousness( right) or vileness( wrong) of an action lies in its utility as means for attainment of happiness or pleasure and dwindling pain.

nonetheless, the utilitarianism has been unfit to deal with certain kinds of moral issues like rights and justice. There are certain conduct that utilitarianism regards as innocently right yet, they violate people’s right and deny them of justice too. This implies that utilitarianism looks only at how important mileage is produced and fails to take into account how that mileage is achieved or distributed among members of a society. further still, it becomes delicate too to estimate the ethical propriety of any decision. It means thus that utilitarianism seems to ignore certain important aspects of ethics since; it holds the principle that right conduct in any situation are the bone that will produce the topmost benefit( s). Hence, the end justifies the means but this principle is inferior.

PURPOSE OF STUDY

Life itself in a society demands a combined action. Simply put, people should have the same kind of station in moral terrain. We can not live at least humanly without in some ways guide our lives. There ought to be a defense of the mortal conduct to be executed in view of their end( s) therefore- the moral proposition among which is Utilitarianism.

It’s important to note that the subject matter of ethics is mortal act viewed from moral rightness or impropriety. Accordingly, the proposition of Utilitarianism posited byJ.S Mill serves as a social instrument for controlling, designating, impacting, moulding and turning other people’s station. The purpose of this principle( utilitarianism) thus, should be noted without mistrustfulness as to enable mortal beings to live good and moral life.

We shall thus, examine critically the proposition of utilitarianism and its proposition with a view to helping individualities to be suitable to approach moral issues with an open mind thereby erecting a better society.

Compass Of Research

This exploration work centres on the utilitarian principle as stressed by John Stuart Mill. still, other narrative and views that rated the utilitarianism are ate .

Methodology

The system of approach in this exploration work is explanatory. It also employed logical and evaluative forms in explaining the doctrine posited by John Stuart Mill for assessing and justifying the individual conduct as good or bad, right or wrong.

Division Of Work

This exploration work is composed of the general preface with four chapters. The general preface relays a brief summary of the doctrine of mileage and influence ofJ.S Mill as well as methodological consideration of the entire exploration work. The chapter one centres on the notion, meaning and forms of utilitarianism while, the alternate chapter examines some affiliated literature on utilitarianism from the history of gospel.

Chapter three dwells on the brand of utilitarianism developed byJ.S Mill as well as inquiring the vulnerability of the proposition. The final chapter is the area of critical evaluation and conclusion. It looks further into the counteraccusations of Mill’s utilitarian principle and an mindfulness of the absolute happiness – God.

CHAPTER ONE

NATURE OF UTILITARIANISM

primary Comment

The delineations of ‘ good ’ in the light of propositions of ethics raised vexing questions to the commands, dictates, purposes and imperative correspond of the principle of mileage. Some of the delineations relate to it as

The commands of God, the dictates of reason, the fulfilment of the purposes of mortal nature, the duty to observe the categorical imperative, etc. Hence, John Locke holds that what has aptness to produce pleasure in us is what we regard as good and what’s apt to produce pain in us, we relate to as wrong. David Hume, on the other hand explains pleasure as sympathy. Consequently, sympathy is the pleasure we feel when we consider the pleasure of others.

still, Jeremy Bentham asserted that man is by nature a pleasure seeking and pain- avoiding beast. According to him, these two generalities( pleasure and pain) govern us in all we do, say and suppose. Utilitarianism thus, is a moral proposition that holds the thesis that man’s loftiest good consists in the optimum consummation of the pleasures of which men is able. It views pleasures and happiness as the end of man. Accordingly, mileage means happiness and pleasure, of which stands for the determinant of morality. Hence, the utilitarian principle approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever which appears to have the tendency to compound or dwindle happiness. It thus acclaims an action to be good when the total of pleasure is lesser than the total of pain.

WHAT IS UTILITARIANISM

We can not appreciate duly the principle of utilitarianism without understanding the values of the generalities of happiness and pleasure. Every pen from Epicurus to Bentham, who had maintained the proposition of mileage, meant by it not commodity to be contradistinguished from pleasure but, pleasure itself together with impunity from pain; for utilitarian principle considers goods like pleasure, happiness good, evil and pain as it relates to mortal conduct and geste .

It must be noted from the onset that those who stand up for mileage as the test of right and wrong didn’t use the term in that confined and simply colloquial sense in which mileage is opposed to pleasure. Utility stands the same thing as happiness and pleasure. also, the world and new generations have erected and acquired their sole notion of the meaning of utilitarianism from the perverted use and description of the term.

Utilitarianism most generally is described as the doctrine, which states that “ the rightness or impropriety of an action is determined, by the virtuousness and vileness of their consequence. It may be put forward moreover as a system of normative ethics( i.e. offer about how we ought to suppose about conduct) or as a system of descriptive ethics( i.e. an analysis of how we do suppose about conduct).

According to The Concise Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, utilitarianism is a proposition about rightness according to which the only good thing is weal. For a utilitarian, morality is convertible with mileage. As similar utilitarianism could be defined as an ethical proposition, which holds that morality of an act consists basically of its mileage as means for attainment of happiness of man, which in utmost cases is considered temporal. Utilitarianism is an ethical proposition grounded on the principle of mileage i.e. the principle of the topmost good or happiness. mileage is viewed thus as the true standard of morality and utmost dependable dimension for distinguishing good conduct from bad conduct hence, the mark with which good conduct are distinguished from bad conduct. It implies thus, that those conduct, which produce or tend to produce pleasure, are good while those that tend to produce pain are bad.

Utilitarianism inferred superiority to frivolousness and the bare pleasure of the moment. Of two pleasures, if there’s one pleasure( action) to which nearly all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation, it’s regarded as the further desirable pleasure. In his book, Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill gave his own notion of the term

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, or the topmost happiness principle holds that conduct 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 absence of pain; while unhappiness( refers to) pain and deprivation of pleasure.

The Greatest Happiness principle explains the ultimate end of man as an actuality pure as far as possible from pain and as rich as possible in enjoyment both in quality and volume. In respect to and for the sake of all desirable effects. either, the proposition of life on which this moral proposition is predicated is that, pleasure and freedom from pain are the only thing desirable as ends and, that all desirable effects are desirable either for the pleasure essential in themselves or as means to the creation of pleasure and the forestallment of pain.

The happiness( pleasure) with which utilitarianism is concerned isn’t that of egotism. Mill emphasized this point saying that the happiness which forms the Utilitarian standard of what’s right in conduct isn’t the agent’s

own happiness but that of all concerned; as between an existent’s own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be rigorously unprejudiced as a disinterested and benevolent onlooker. He maintained thus that:

For that standard isn’t the agent’s own topmost happiness but the topmost quantum of happiness altogether; and if it may conceivably be misdoubted whether a noble character is always the happier for its nobility, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier and that the worlds in general is immensely a killer by it.

Hence people shall always act from the persuading of promoting the general interests of the society. material to mention then’s that the utilitarian morality conversed with the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, to do as you would love to be done by others and to love( your neighbour) as you love yourself. This always reads the complete spirit of ethics of mileage.

mileage thus enjoins as means of making the nearest approach to its objects, that laws and social arrangements should place happiness or interest of every existent in harmony with the interest of the whole.

This could be achieved through education as a medium to establish in the mind of every existent an indissoluble association between individual happiness and the good at the society; hence the humanitarian nature of utilitarianism.

nevertheless, there’s no ethical standard that decides an action to be good or bad, right or wrong since such a judgment is done by a good, gracious, stalwart and benevolent man or the negative. also, right action doesn’t inescapably indicate a righteous character. For case, to be a good croaker isn’t the same as being a good person. One could be a good croaker without being a good person. As similar, there’s a difference between perfection in one’s profession and the exertion of the same person as a person. In the long run, still the stylish evidence of a good character remains good conduct. Utilitarianism could, thus, only attain its end by the general civilization of nobility of character.

TYPES OF UTILITARIANISM

Then, we’re going to consider five forms of utilitarianism from different perspectives. still each kind of utilitarianism relates to another as similar, the knowledge of one serves as a base to understanding and knowledge of the other. They include

Act Utilitarianism

ii. Rule Utilitarianism

iii. Individual Utilitarianism

iv. Social Utilitarianism

Egoistic Altruism

ACT- UTILITARIANISM

Act utilitarianism is one of the major forms of utilitarianism that holds that the rightness or impropriety of an action should be decided only on the base of the consequence( s) of the action. This is to say that the “ after- effect ” or the result of an action determines the morality of the action in question. Hence, those conduct that produce good results for the lesser figures of people are considered good while those conduct on the other hand that produce evil result, pain and unhappiness, are regarded as bad and wrong. further still, act- utilitarianism claims that an action is right if it achieves maximum mileage for a maximum number hence; the morality of an action is determined, according to this principle, on the base of the consequences of the action.

Act- utilitarianism is concerned or focuses on a particular existent’s action as it appeals to the existent. therefore, the consequence of an action of an individual becomes the standard of morality. As similar if an action produces the same consequence on a number of individual the particular action is considered innocently good, grounded on the total of pain or pleasure achieved. This principle implies therefore that act- utilitarianism doesn’t consider the nature of an action. rather, it counts on the effect of similar action on the individual to judge whether an action is right or wrong, what counts is the result or the consequences of the action. It means thus that as long as an action will produce the stylish possible results for the topmost number of people that particular action should be performed and be carried out as a innocently good act. In other words, the end justifies the means.

RULE- UTILITARIANISM

This is another major form of utilitarianism. Rule- utilitarianism serves as an important and intellectual indispensable interpretation of utilitarianism, offered by the utilitarian in response to their critics. The introductory strategy of rule- utilitarian is to limit utilitarian analysis to the evaluation of moral rules. What this means is that the supposed determinant of a right( moral) action stems from the question of whether the action is needed by the correct moral rules that everybody should follow. Hence, if an action produces pleasure when employed the general rule of conduct it’s regarded as innocently good and vice versa.

According to rule- utilitarian, when trying to determine if a particular action is ethical, one is noway supposed to ask whether that particular action will produce the topmost quantum of mileage. rather one is supposed to ask whether the action is needed by the correct moral rules that everyone should follow. The introductory question in this dimension should be what would be the useful consequence of a moral rule if everybody adopts and obeys it? Or what are the correct moral rules? It’s similar questions as the above that should be our concern. Indeed, the correct moral rules are those rules that would produce the topmost quantum of mileage if everyone were to follow them thereby maximizing mileage. Simply put, rule- utilitarianism is concerned with rules as such the right action then’s that which is in consonant with those rules that will maximize mileage if accepted by all.

Meanwhile, the fact that a certain action would maximize mileage on a particular occasion doesn’t show that the action is good and innocently right. rather, we should find out a correct moral rule that should estimate particular conduct involved in thecounter-examples in relation to the espoused rules. The moral rules must be grounded on the principle of mileage. By this point thus, it’s only the rules which will produce the stylish possible result for the topmost number of people if everybody would observe it when espoused, stands out as standard of distinguishing good conduct from bad conduct. This proposition of rule- utilitarianism is epitomized therefore

a. An action is right from an ethical point of view if and only if the action would produce maximum mileage when relates to the moral rules that are considered correct.

b. A moral rule is correct if and only if the sum aggregate of mileage produced if everybody were to follow that rule is lesser than the sum aggregate of serviceability produced if everybody were to follow some indispensable rule.

Eventually, rule- utilitarianism puts into consideration similar question as would useful consequent result from everyone espousing and adhering this rule? If the answer is in the affirmative, also such an act becomes innocently good while if on the negative, it becomes innocently wrong.

INDIVIDUAL UTILITARIANISM

Individual utilitarianism is another form of utilitarianism else known as Egoistic sybaritism. The term obviously explains its conception. This form of utilitarianism claims that the end of each man of which each man ought to seek is his own topmost particular pleasure. thus, whatever action that tends to promote and increase per se pleasure of each man are to be regarded as innocently right and good while those that produce the reverse of one’s particular pleasure are innocently bad and wrong conduct.

This academy of study agreed also that man’s loftiest good is mortal pleasure. Consequently, Jeremy Bentham maintained that pleasure is the only good asked by all men and; hurt the only wrong which all men seek to avoid. As similar pain and pleasure controls our conduct therefore

It’s for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand, the standard of right and wrong, on the other hand the chain of causes and goods, are fastened to their throne.