The Utilitarian Thought of Philosophy - Essay Example

?Philosophy Ethics The utilitarian thought of philosophy supports the view that an action is considered to be correct if the action brings about happiness of the greatest number of people. John Stuart Mill was a philosopher of the utilitarian idea and claimed that Rule Utilitarianism is the rule for leading a proper and a moral life. Mill explained that Rule Utilitarianism was the rule that worked towards maximizing happiness. According to this rule an act is moral and correct if it brings about happiness for the maximum number of people. In the same way it puts an action to be morally incorrect if it brings about unhappiness and is the cause of displeasure for the maximum number of people. Mill explained this rule with the aid of the principle of utility. According to this principle which is also sometimes referred to as the principle of happiness, for a person to be happy himself he should consider the happiness of others to be as important as his own happiness (Mills 1867). This philosophy of happiness was further explained by John Stuart Mill with the assistance of his theories by putting forward the rules of thumb. The reason for presenting these rules was that Mill argued that a person should not misunderstand the meaning of happiness. These rules were used by him to support the theory of maximizing happiness and provide an insight into the meaning of this principle. These rules encompass the aspects of this principle to cover the features and the characteristics which should be understood about it. The rules of thumb were to be always considered to reach to a proper conclusion as to what happiness actually is. According to these rules, it is through knowledge and learning that a person actually gets to know that what act will bring about the maximum happiness. The reason behind this is that it is through awareness of the developing of humans and human nature that one can understand that what act is morally correct and will actually bring about the maximum happiness for the maximum number of people. These rules also present that a person should increase his level when thinking about happiness. That is happiness should not be restricted to certain things. A person should search for happiness in everything that surrounds him. These things can range from nature to music to history and art. That is a person should be learned and it is through his knowledge that he will be able to find happiness in all these things. An example of education can be considered here as to how much educated an individual is to know about certain facts about life. Being educated would help an individual to distinguish between the higher and lower pleasures in terms of happiness. He would understand as to which pleasures are attainable and which are not. With appropriate education the individuals are able to experience both the lower and higher forms of pleasure through which they can decide as to what they would prefer. With enough education one can know about different things existing in the world and thus individuals can then decide as to which happiness they really want. (Mills 1867; Steward & Blocker 2005). To make his theory even better understood Mill clearly presented the exceptions that implied to this rule of happiness. He explained that though acts like lying and murder are considered to be wrong under normal circumstances but these acts become acceptable under certain conditions. An example to this can be that when a person has to protect himself from a murderer he has a right to act in self defense. Another example which can be considered is a person can lie when the person has to conceal some information from someone who might misuse it and cause great harm. Mill is quoted as “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” (Mill 1986 ii). According to the utilitarian position, it is the consequences of an act that matter the most. In this regard, John Stuart Mill who was a utilitarian also talked about the results of the actions that a person performed. He states “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant” (John 1912 p. 13). According to Mill, most of the actions that human beings perform are out of self interest. He explained that if a person performed an act for others but with some self interest and the result is a good one then that act is morally praiseworthy. If one saves a drowning fellow creature with the intention that he would be paid for it is not wrong. This is because according to Mill the result of the act that a person is performing is good and brings about happiness. According to Mill an act is morally praiseworthy if it brings about the maximum happiness. Obviously letting the person drown would bring no happiness at all. As this act has given a good end result with happiness, Mill considered it to be morally praiseworthy. At another instance Mill states “We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavorable opinion of anyone, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours” (John 1912 p.94). This quote clearly denotes his meaning about happiness and individuality (Mills 1867). Thus the utilitarian position argues very strongly in favor of the concept of the maximum happiness. This principle of happiness is considered correct irrespective of the fact that the act that whether the action is performed out of a pure intention and motive of helping someone or whether the act is performed for personal interest. That is the utilitarianism considers an act which brings about the maximum happiness even if the person who performed this act did not do it with the intention of doing something good. The utilitarian concept explains that the key to leading a moral life is the consideration of the benefit of the maximum people. This concept explains that proper education and learning can teach a person that which acts will bring about happiness. This is because it is through experience and learning that a person knows how this world has evolved and what acts are moral and will be good for the maximum number of people. The arguments that are used to support this position are convincing but there are reasons which provide an insight into the flaws that have been overlooked by the utilitarian position. During the reign of Hitler in Germany, experimental work was conducted on the Jewish slaves. The purpose of these experiments was to learn about the pathological conditions that affected humans so that the life quality and expectancy of the human beings could be improved. These experiments provided the ground for many discoveries and many things were learned from them but many detainees on whom these experiments were performed lost their lives in the process. The purpose of these experiments was to serve humanity and they did work towards bringing about the benefit of the maximum number of people by improving their lives as well as the lives of the future generations. But this benefit was obtained at the stake of the lives of poor prisoners. The utilitarian principle argues in favor of the thought of bringing out the maximum happiness and thus following the rule, this unethical practice would be considered to be correct considering the fact that the result of this experiment was beneficial and was leading to the process of maximizing happiness (Schaefer 2004; Mills 1867). Another example that can be considered to show the flaws of this position of a utilitarian is that of embryonic stem cell research. This research can be used for the curing of many diseases like cancer, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and other pathological conditions. Secondly with the help of this research the process of human development can be properly understood. though this research has a very good scope and it could be helpful in saving many lives, this research has not yet obtained any cure or remedy and above this research leads to the death of a life and thus the killing of one for saving others. If the embryonic stem cell research is considered from the utilitarian perspective, this research should be promoted because it allows the treatment of many diseases and is helpful for the human beings. But when it is considered from an ethical point of view, many questions arise because it involves the destroying of a human embryo which has the potential to become a normal human being. Thus it is similar to killing a human being which is in the process of growth. Just in a few weeks the heart of the embryo starts to beat and it would be a very harsh act to kill a being. The embryos which are being worked upon are provided by parents by themselves who are in favor of this research. After these embryos become short the ovum would be obtained from women putting them at health risks. Thus again for saving another being the life of one may be put at stake. These arguments put forward the question that if it is moral enough to kill individuals for the sake of great happiness or not. The ethical point of view here is considering the fact that innocent individuals have a right to live and without being tortured. Mill’s argument about achieving great happiness can be denied here when it comes to aspects such as freedom, democracy, and ethics. Every individual is born with a right to live and prove his worth and hence he should not be tortured in any way for the greater good of the society. These works can rather be carried out on voluntary individuals who are interested in the greater good of the society. Adopting such a stance would help to fulfill the legacy of greater happiness and would also not disrupt the normal behaviors of the society. For an act to be good different aspects have to be taken under consideration. And here in these experiments the acts are not good enough to bring greater happiness to the society. The acts did not consider voluntary options but rather were forcefully influenced on individuals. Hence the acts were unethical as for an act to be good it has to be worthy enough for the betterment of the whole society. Stem Cell Research has yet not proved to be successful enough and hence it can be said that the acts are not being done for the greater good of the society. These acts were being controlled by the governments and scientists and hence they were providing a constraint for the good acts. Hence it can be said that these acts were not good enough for the happiness in society. It can thus be explained that the arguments provided by the utilitarian position are not successful and incorporation of a higher consideration and explanation regarding this principle is required to make this position of utilitarianism completely supportable and free of flaws (Mills 1867; Steward & Blocker 2005). Bibliography Top of Form John, S. M. (1912). On Liberty. Top of Form Mill, J. S. (1867). Utilitarianism ... Third edition. London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, 1867. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Schaefer N. (2004). The legacy of Nazi medicine. New Atlantis (Washington, D.C.). 5, 54-60. Top of Form Stewart, D., & Blocker, H. G. (2005). Fundamentals of philosophy. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Read More