Download file to see previous pages...
Mills view on this statement is on the quality of happiness that matters and not the quantity of pleasure. He is also of the view that one pleasure may be more valuable than another. If there is an instant where all that have exposure of both pleasures give a decided preference despite any act of moral obligation to choose it, mills sees it as the more desirable pleasure. It is evident that if one pleasure is far above the other that it is preferred even when it is not satisfying there is another pleasure in the environment is capable to fill the discontent. Mills also view that no human being can be contented to be transformed into any of the lower creature for the benefit of full interest of a beast’s pleasure. It is apparent that a man cannot wish to sink into a lower level of life. This may be associated with the love of liberty and independence (Mill, 2002).
I agree with Mill in his statement that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. The observation that even a noble character can bring less happiness to an individual as for the society it is beneficial. It is apparent that the outstanding happiness principle assures the total amount of happiness as the noble character even when it is not desirable to an individual. I agree also with Mills that no person in his conscience mind would be selfish even when he is persuaded that the fool is satisfied with his interest than he is with his.
Another reason I agree with Mills is that a being of higher dignity is entitled to more to be happy. A human being is capable of more specific suffering and certainly has access to more opportunities than creature of an inferior type (Mill, 2002). In the instance one try to know what satisfies a pig, one can find out is that it is food. It is evident due to its greedy nature a pig tends to eat a lot. As for human beings satisfaction is not only brought by food as surrounding oneself with
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Thus a society that supports justice claims for equal liberty for all its citizens. As the concept of utilitarianism explains, the “Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle” believes that actions should be considered as correct when they result in happiness, while they are stated as wrong when “reverse” of happiness occurs.
Utilitarianism is often summarized as “the greatest good for the greatest number” being used to calculate the moral correctness of an action, decision, or policy for both individuals and society on a common standard. Utilitarianism ideally judges actions based upon their outcome in producing the greatest happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people, and therefore the ‘utility’ of an action can be calculated through its use in the production of the social good.
However, in order for these rules and regulations to be obeyed, there must be an autonomous government that ensures people follow the rule without using any favor in its administration (Bowie and Simon 56). Therefore, this essay is going to support the crucial role played by society in ensuring citizens enjoy their liberties, freedoms and happiness, as advocated by Mill in his two books On Liberty and Utilitarianism.
Mill proposed that the main aim of taking moral decisions is to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number. According to Mill, this objective is considered a legislative duty for all social institutions. Mill’s Utilitarian theory also posits that the conscience is not in any way the sole authority of the decision to do what is either right or wrong.
Referring to it as the principle of utility, Mill believes that the highest normative principle is that actions are moral as they tend to promote happiness and immoral as they tend to produce sadness or dissatisfaction. Although Mill was a utilitarian, he argued that not all forms of pleasure are of equal value, using his famous saying "It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied, than a fool satisfied." In this regard, John Stuart Mill rejects the classical virtue theory.
Resultantly, they steered their thoughts to make their "simple explanations" more comprehensive, trying to engulf the entire complexity of human existence with effects of surroundings, nature within and without and myriads of other factors. Net result is that they finally land into complex explanations of human behavior or requirements of behavior; the very same place which they tried to avoid in the first instance.
Mill, the prevention of harm is commonly thought to delimit the extent of permissible political interference with a person's liberty1. This view is put forward in his famous harm principle, the principle that, ". 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." The problem with applying Mill's principle is determining what is to count as a harm1.
These elements are reflected in the limitations which he placed upon the state's control of its citizen's lives, and some of the counter-arguments against Mill's theory. It becomes clear through reading of Mill's work and that of his commentators, that Mill's alternative to the current legal and social system contains as many complicated controls as those which he intended to replace.
tanding about what utility and justice meant but it has various meanings from philosophical and social perspective as defined by various philosophers and various social thinkers which is not necessarily aligned with Mills perspective on utility and justice. It would then be
From this, the two categories of happiness and unhappiness arise: happiness that signifies presence of pleasure and no pain, and unhappiness represent pain without pleasure. Two people known to be the leading
3 Pages(750 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism for FREE!