Utilitarianism Essay Essay Example for Free

Utilitarianism Essay EssayUtilitarianism is a theory in ethics regarding actions that maximize utility. Utilitarianism is human- revolve about and has a spurside of morality. One could say this theory holds to happiness as the principle, at to the lowest degree that is what tail end loaf proposes. move is well known for being non l single(prenominal) a great philosopher of his time, and besides an advocate for utilitarianism, in so much that mill about believed and even improved upon Benthams views. fanny Stuart Mill was the most famous and influential British philosopher of the nineteenth century (Clark, 2003). Mill felt that the foundation of morals, utility or the great happiness principle, holds actions atomic number 18 right in a certain isotropy because they tend to promote happiness and wrong because they produce just the opposite of happiness. Happiness is pleasure, with the absence of annoyance unhappiness, equals pain and the absence of pleasure. Mill fe lt that higher pleasures are more valuable than lower ones and also better (Peck, 2006). Pleasure to Mills differs in quality and quantity. Mill felt that a somebodys achievements and goals such as virtuous living should be recognized as a pause of their happiness.Mill believed that happiness is the only basis of morality, and that happiness is the only thing tribe truly desire. Mills take on justice was that it is based on utility and happiness and that rights only constitute because they are necessary for a persons happiness (Peck, 2006). When speaking of qualitative and quantitative utilitarianism on that quest are differences within the two. They twain measure the value of different levels of happiness (Ring, 2010). Qualitative utilitarianism entails that mental pleasures are different and also superior to physical pleasures. Quantitative utilitarianism entails that each(prenominal) types of happiness are equal or the same.In quantitative utilitarianism what matters most is the quantity or amount of happiness, not what type (Ring, 2010). When speaking of Mills and his approach one would need to consider the strengths and weaknesses of what Mills proposes. The strengths of Mills approach to utilitarianism would be the fact of the only thing of substance or that matters is what happens in ones life regardless of the intentions (Qizilbash, 2006). One weakness would be the proposal that ones intentions do Running head UTILITARIANISM raise 1 not matter or hold any substantial repercussions.Ones intentions can have a very invalidating affect on themselves but more important on others especially innocent by standers. Ones intentions could be of utmost importance to the good of the majority. another(prenominal) strength of Mills approach is the fact that Mill considers emotions a form of great pleasure (Qizilbash, 2006). This point of the theory shows some impartiality. Mills also mentions general rules, which in turn would allow for the use of world-w ide rules, and this is a strength for sure. In Mills approach one more weakness would be the cleverness for one to predict the outcome or consequences.More weaknesses than strengths exist in Mills approach, for instance, to get the greatest good for the greatest number can sometimes make the simplest of actions become humble- for instance buying something for oneself that is not necessarily needed but none the less something desired, but if that money worn-out(a) could have been spent elsewhere and been more beneficial to a greater number of people then one is considered immoral or acting immoral. Another weakness in Mills approach is a competent person ordain always pick a higher pleasure all over a lower one (Qizilbash, 2006) to that degree this is neither feasible nor true in all situations.And the major weakness in Mills theory is the assumption that one should pursue something just because it is desirable and produces pleasure, this can have many negative consequences. Th ought experimentations have been used in every field from mathematics to philosophy. In this thought experiment four people play a question and answer game.There is a score rewarded for all(prenominal) correct answer, and at the end of the game the two highest scoring people will get the calamity to walk away with either a large amount of cash for themselves, half of the cash or unfortunately empty handed. In this particular game one will decide to percentage and secernate the cash, or be greedy and try to walk away with all of the cash, but there is that venture of walking away with nothing.Imagine one withdraws share and the other chooses keep, then the one who chose keep gets it all, if both choose share then the cash will be divided evenly and both benefit, after Running head UTILITARIANISM ESSAY 1 all they both worked equally towards this opportunity. But if both choose keep, they will both walk away empty handed with nothing.In this thought experiment we will assume tha t both people chose share, considering this is the only sure way of walking away with at least half of the cash. This experiment would defend Mills version of utilitarianism on one hand because both people have done what is best for the greater good (Clark, 2003) so what works for the whole and is better for all involved is best.But when considering Mills part of the version that speaks to one always choosing the higher pleasure over the lower one (Qizilbash, 2006) this scenario would critique- the higher pleasure would have been winning all of the cash for oneself, not having to share it and one knows that this is what each person desired, what would give them each much more pleasure, but instead they went for a lower zone of pleasure when deciding to at least walk away with some kinda than no cash. In this experiment one can say it defends and critiques Mills because Mills was contradicting in his approach and views.Mill was known to improve Benthams views, and not agree with the m, but yet Mill leans towards Benthams views in a lot of his approach to utilitarianism. References Clark, K. J. , Poortenga, A. (2003).The story of ethics, Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall. Peck, L. A. (2006). A Fool Satisfied? Journalists and Mills Principle of Utility. Running head UTILITARIANISM ESSAY 1 Journalism Mass Communication Educator, 61(2), 205-213 Qizilbash, M. (2006). Capability, Happiness and Adaption in Sen and J. S. Mill. Utilitas, 18(1), 20-32. doi10. 1017/SO953820805001809 Ring, L. , Gross, C. R. , McColl, E. (2010, June). Putting the text back into context toward increased use of mixed methods for quality of life research. Quality of Life Research. pp. 613-615. doi 10. 1007/S11136-010-9647-z.