The Ethical Dilemma of Maximizing Pleasure. Utilitarianism Dilemma - Essay Example

?Roshan Singh Burke PHLC05 6 October The Ethical Dilemma of Maximizing Pleasure This past week, I was facing a dilemma of whether I should finish my homework or whether I should procrastinate and attend Nuit Blanche. This dilemma made me consider which activity provided me more pleasure and I used this principle of maximizing pleasure to justify my decision. My predicament provides quite a simplified and inaccurate version of John Stuart Mill’s principle of utility which states that actions promoting happiness or pleasure are considered to be correct whereas actions promoting unhappiness or pain are considered to be wrong (John Stuart Mill 330). According to Mill’s principle, my choice of going to Nuit Blanche instead of studying was the right one as I was able to maximize my pleasure. But, this situation is too simplistic and does not provide a moral argument for Mill’s principle. Let us consider the following thought experiment where a trolley is out of control and it is approaching five people who cannot escape the impact. Fortunately, you are next to a switch which could change the path of the train and save the five people. But, the other track is under construction and if you were to flip the switch, you would kill one construction worker. In this situation, Mill’s principle of utility would argue that saving five people would result in maximizing the most happiness or pleasure and therefore it would be morally justified to kill the construction worker. Thus, the central idea of Mill’s principle states that the morality of an action is contingent upon its consequence. I believe that Mill’s principle is problematic because the notion of happiness or pleasure is subjective to every human being and this subjectivity creates problems when solving ethical dilemmas. In order to present my position clearly, I will first provide the benefits of Mill’s principle. I will then elaborate on some of the common objections and problems that his principle faces and demonstrate my issue with the principle and how its application fails in contemporary society. Mill’s Principle: Mill contributed to utilitarianism through reinforcing the view that individuals ought to take actions that produce the greatest happiness among people while keeping within reason. In contrast to other contributors to utilitarianism, Mill was of the view that the concept of happiness had differences qualitatively i.e. being directly proportional to intelligence of the individual. He argues that happiness is superior to contentment and one who experiences higher forms of happiness would not trade them for lower forms, “Few intelligent creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of the beast’s pleasures, no intelligence would consent to be a fool” (John Stuart Mill 21). He further argues that those who have experienced only the lower happiness are not in a position to objectively contribute to the question of which one is better (23). The gist of Mill’s principle is consequentialism; that actions are right based on the degree to which the greatest good for the greatest number of people is promoted. Benefits of Mill’s Principle: Mill’s argument of utilitarianism gives a yardstick to judge actions as either being right or wrong on the basis of the amount of happiness caused and to how many individuals. It thus can be applied in guiding actions that potentially raise ethical questions, where it can be argued that acting for the benefit of happiness for the majority of people is the right course of action; individuals should always choose to that which produces the greatest utility. While traditional consequentialism would seem to excuse any form of action as long as it produces pleasure, Mill’s principle is based on qualitative reasoning, establishing that there are higher and lower forms of happiness, hence sadist actions such as torture cannot be excused on however much happiness they cause to majority of people. Shortfalls and Objections to Mill’s Principle: The principle has faced several objections and criticism especially in modern times. Among the main drawbacks of use of utilitarianism is with regard to its ability to guide our actions; undertaking to predict outcomes of an action besides who they will affect and to what extent is not as straightforward as presented by Mill. It is also practically unusable since it needs one to make calculations as described earlier which would be impossible in most situations. The principle also allows for harm to the minority so long as the greatest good for the majority is achieved: a scenario that raises serious moral and ethical questions about the issue of justice. Besides, I feel that Mill’s principle does not prohibit any sort of action; all actions can be interpreted as bringing about most happiness to the majority according to the circumstances which means that nothing can be seen as being straightforward impermissible. Another concern is the principle’s promotion of heroism which may be humanly impossible. Acting in order to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people in certain circumstances may translate to giving priority to others while it is human nature to give preference to self and loved ones. A case of a mother choosing between her child and a group of strangers comes to mind where Mill would require her to act to make the majority happy (John Stuart Mill 330). Acting on the basis of utilitarianism also limits innovativeness in solution of ethical dilemmas; focus on the happiness of the majority while ignoring the minority or even harming them in the process does not allow for other causes of action that would maybe lead to satisfaction for all parties. There are several possible alternatives to situations some of which may fail to bring the greatest happiness to majority of individuals but instead bring contentment to everyone involved, majority and minority. In such instances, it is only ethical to settle for contentment of all over happiness of the majority. Lastly, Mill appears to dictate what happiness means while the concept of happiness should in fact be subjective to every individual. He presents moral high-ground judges to indicate to the society what the higher forms of happiness should be. CONCLUSION Mill’s principle is based on the view that actions are right based on the degree to which they promote the greatest good to the greatest number of people and that happiness can be analyzed qualitatively. Whereas several advantages can be observed in Mill’s principle especially centered on its ability to guide actions and judge right and wrong, the weaknesses far outweigh the benefits. It may be seen to promote harm to the minority, limit innovativeness in actions, promote moral heroism disconnected with reality and further, it is subjective in terms of what happiness means. In light of this evidence, Mill’s principle is inadequate in the solution of moral dilemmas. Read More