John Stuart Mills Ethics - Essay Example

?On John Stuart Mill’s Ethics Mary and Jane are neither friends nor acquaintances of each other yet Chloe is a common friend of both and whom Mary and Jane have each confided with on a regular basis though none of them is ever aware that Chloe is a friend of the other as well. On one particularly revealing occasion of coincidence, Chloe spotted Jane and Nick at a park nearby hand-in-hand, looking very intimate with each other through gestures and direct actions that are collectively indicative of an affair. Chloe thought to herself that he must be the man Jane told her about the other night though she vaguely caught the name during their phone conversation. She knew, however, just then that it was all wrong for Nick is a married man with two children and Mary is his wife of five years at that point in time. Now, since Chloe is a common link who happens to have witnessed scenarios on both sides and believes to have firsthand knowledge of the moral conflict, she eventually finds herself in a dilemma of choosing which between the two parties ought to be dealt with first. By the established norm, of course, she must opt to stop Jane from proceeding to fall into an adulterous relationship with Nick for the sake of Mary’s family, being the man’s original legal attachment. Nevertheless, in doing so, she would have caused Jane severe pain out of an emotional struggle which she is known to be weak in coping especially when she seems to have put forth in reasoning that her current state of affair was obtained with huge sacrifices that her happiness, as the chief consequence thereof, may not or should not be taken away from her at all cost. Apparently, Chloe figures the validity of Jane’s argument upon pondering on some relevant aspects of John Stuart Mill’s ethics on utilitarianism, yet reserves an equivalent degree of doubt and philosophical analysis in favor of Mary. By the simple defining principle of utilitarianism in which the consequence is set to determine the moral value of an action or deed, Stuart Mill emerges to draw on a favored unique perspective where such theory ought to be acknowledged in the light of understanding that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill, Ch. 2).” Equivalently, this is to mean that as long as an act or behavior causes one or many to be happy, then it is to be judged as morally right. One way of gaining discernment of this proposition is by asking ‘is happiness then a measure of justice?’ To what extent should happiness shape the view of morality as good and scrupulous if there are people like Jane whose case is quite special? What if one’s doings of something make the individual happy yet the ones beyond his or her circle are rather annoyed or hurt as in the probable effect which Jane and Nick’s immoral quest would bear upon Mary? Surely Jane deserves to be happy and possesses the right to act accordingly but how can actions by which happiness is experienced be evaluated as truly ethically conforming if someone else out there as Mary is otherwise bound to be unhappy? Or must a specific area be defined within which only a certain set of actions with all the corresponding outcomes can be permitted to undergo moral justifications? At this stage, Chloe could be found to comprehend Jane on account of Mill’s claim that what promotes happiness at least for Jane’s part should be right but it would similarly suspend her judgment for Mary’s welfare since Jane’s consent of the illegal matter advances not in any way the happiness or interest of Mary. While their situation may be felt to require a greater level of moral concern, Mill’s philosophy appears to consist of a pattern or direction where the kind of ‘happiness’ being referred to equates to ‘pleasure’, and this pleasure comes in different forms, quality, and quantity. In this regard, the political economist seems to have chiefly adhered to ‘pleasure’ and brings it in strict confinement with ‘happiness’ so that one can only be adequately identified in the presence of the other, and vise versa. Mill’s point and approach leads his critic of the issue to keep a balance between happiness as linked to ‘moral satisfaction’ and happiness in enduring association with ‘pleasure’ though a vague relation exists between pleasure and morality. Based on this, Jane may be understood as happy in the sense that she renders utilization of pleasure via her pursuit of Nick in a supposedly forbidden union. But her use of pleasure to be happy justifies not her moral decision and act as righteous for by virtue of morality, the value of duty is recognized and is therefore expected to be utilized in this respect. It turns out Jane is more bent on pleasure, as she takes for granted the duty to learn about Nick’s marital status which if ever she acquires knowledge of should prompt her maturity to change her mind and decline, knowing how the continuation of their indecent affair would bring about ruin to the marriage of Mary and Nick. Under moral terms, thus, Chloe must consider that Jane’s preferences are wrong and would remain unrighteous if Chloe fails to convince her that she behaves to cause reverse of happiness for another. Chloe, however, can choose herein to provide moral correction that would serve to guide both of her friends to happiness. She can advise Jane to divert her attention to finding another guy, state the case of Mary to stir empathy in her, reprimand Nick with a threat of disclosure to Mary, and conceal details from Mary until no further resolution is sought. The intention to hide from Mary ought to be evaluated as a right measure for by the same utilitarian ethics, the sole aim of divulging information might end in unhappiness unless driven back or counteracted by the utility in the form of concealment. Due to the limitations of Mill’s ethics on utilitarianism, it may only respond to certain problems or brief scope of issues. On reading the second chapter dealing with “What Utilitarianism Is”, nonetheless, I find Mill to have a acknowledged a broader context of perceiving happiness and what I am disposed to ponder as the ground why he insists on extensively limiting the comparison to pleasure, despite a number of synonymous terms, is the significant relevance pleasure makes with ‘utility’. Utility basically denotes “an economic term pertaining to the total satisfaction received from consuming a good or service (Utility, Investopedia)” or in more plain definition – the ‘state of usefulness’ which we are most likely inclined to think of as in reference to tangible objects used. Hence, it forms a basis of affirming that utilitarianism serves as the working principle behind the fondness to ‘utilize’ or engage with utility for the purpose of fulfilling a need or gratification. Pleasure, likewise, by society’s conventional observation and encounter points to delight or that which is derived out of something physically attained. Apparently, the sensible connection occurring between ‘utility’ and ‘pleasure’ is the material entity which either is attributive of so it becomes convenient to say for instance ‘it is a pleasure to have used this relaxing pool’ even if Mill may be considered to have attempted resolving the conflict arising from the application of ethics to happiness that extends to the non-physical. Thus, while Mill recognizes the power of moral law in regulating man’s utilitarian nature, he refrains from believing that austere moral control must be employed to allow the concept of utilitarianism to quantify ‘pleasure’ for this implies setting restrictions to the highest good which is ‘happiness’ from the concrete and the abstract alike, stating “No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness … that each person's happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons (Mill, p. 81).” Works Cited Mill, John Stuart. Crisp, Roger. ed. Utilitarianism. Oxford University Press, 1998. “Utility.” Investopedia ULC. 2012. Web. 15 Feb 2013. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utility.asp#axzz20kup79ee. Read More