J.S. Mill’s Utilitarianism seeks to develop and defend the ethical theory of Utilitarianism. This theory holds that actions are morally right in proportion as they promote overall happiness and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (7). Happiness here refers to the agent’s happiness and the aggregate happiness of all conscious beings affected. Mill argues that since happiness is the one thing desirable as an end-in-itself and the motive for all we do, it alone qualifies as the ultimate end and standard for morality. Therefore, our foundation of morality should be the Greatest Happiness Principle.
A foundational premise underlying Mill’s case for utilitarian ethics is that happiness is the one thing desirable for its own sake. He contends that general happiness, comprising the sum of all individual instances of pleasure and avoidance of pain, provides the basis for moral rightness. Actions become morally correct based on whether they promote the maximum aggregate balance of pleasure over pain. This focus on outcomes provides more explicit moral guidance than alternative standards invoking character traits or motives alone.
Mill develops a line of reasoning from his views on human motivation to argue why promoting overall happiness is the best moral standard. He asserts that pleasure and being free from pain are the only states human beings intrinsically desire for their own sake. All other objects of desire are sought instrumentally because they bring pleasure and happiness. Since happiness constitutes the essential component people seek in aiming for money, virtue, health, or other ends, it includes the most reasonable standard for evaluating actions. As Mill puts it, “The utilitarian doctrine is, that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end.” From this underlying motive of happiness, Mill derives his principle that right actions promote the most outstanding general balance of pleasure over pain. General happiness, also called Universal Happiness, is not interpreted to denote only the happiness of the agent but the total sum of happiness of all those conscious creatures impacted. Acting on this” pleased- with-the-maximum-aggregate-happiness” command defines values and duties more palpably than from their lofty abstraction.
Moreover, a virtuous character’s attitudes are those oriented toward the good that brings more pleasure than pain. It is sought that the powers of government are not exploited to influence behavior that stands for the common good rather than just individual fascination. The thought concepts become more evident when connected to the general advantage, which forms the ultimate.
Raising a philosophy to believe that overall happiness is more important than personal interests aims at providing a proper method to solve moral conflicts through cost-benefit analysis that takes into account total welfare. Most situations can not be solved by using just the principles of character or motive that remain without the codified decision procedure. When you oversee a scenario in which anybody is doing good to others or opposing the best interests of someone else, the practical standard looks for the most beneficial outcome that involves the impartial enjoyment of everyone. Mills urges the adapted and detailed welfare stance as a meaningful solution by criticizing the indefinite explanations in terms of moral guilt or fullness of character, which often are indeterminate. The selection of Utilitarianism prioritizes the outcomes of ethical decisions instead of the general meaning, giving a more manageable mechanism.
Counter objections: Mill distinguishes higher quality pleasures from base sensual ones. He proposes an impartial standard where competent judges with experience with varying pleasures can attest to differences in quality (12). So, while pleasure remains the motive, higher pleasures related to intellect, feelings, imagination, and moral sentiments contribute more to happiness. Mill believes virtue aligns with utility since virtuous actions like justice and devotion promote happiness. Feelings of unity and promoting the common good are essential to individual happiness (40-41). Mill thoroughly addresses why general utility provides the only coherent basis for morality versus other proposed standards (26). Alternatives like virtue, duty, or sympathy all fold back into utility. Virtue ethicists see virtues as dispositions that lead to an end – well-being or happiness. Notions of moral duty arise from pressures to act for the general good. Sympathy comes from the awareness that interests are shared across all people. Since consequences matter morally, these standards all reduce to evaluating actions by their outcomes.
Focusing exclusively on ethical theory, Mill relies primarily on conceptual analysis and deductive reasoning rather than empirical evidence. His line of argument depends heavily on accepting his premise about what is inherently desirable and using that to reason for his Greatest Happiness Principle. The implicit view of human nature is that pleasure and happiness motivate all human actions. He could improve his arguments if he is willing to put forward more real-world examples instead of unreal moral psychology theories. Accordingly, Mill does a great job of blending his philosophical raw materials (i.e., an intended scope of an honest work in normative ethics) to devise a caringly crafted system of ethical theory based on quite fundamental principles of consequences.
In the dispersed facts, Mill gives a sane and genuine argument that happiness is the base of morality because other morals bravedomagomicrofall into that of utility. It should be emphasized, however, that his arguments are relatively confined and can be broadened with an even more inclusive understanding of human wellness. Nevertheless, within the domain which he intends, Mill has sound reasoning. He establishes general concepts and then works down from basic principles to values as the conclusion. Through his ideas, a probable criterion of the right actions is provided by scoring the highest overall amount of happiness impartially considered and debate remaining on this kind of ethics.
As seen from Mill’s principle on the evaluation of ethics using general utility, it is pretty appealing, but only within certain limits. The thesis class lies in the perception of the man in ruling spirits who focuses on people’s motivations for happiness. Pursuing pleasure and escaping from pain belong to those basic behaviors, and those two universal urges govern them. Consequently, the idea of such a moral doctrine resting on the base of an attempt to maximize everyone’s happiness is pragmatic psychologically. In contrast to general appeals to character or obligation, utilitarian weighing of costs and benefits provides a standard set of methods for morality determination, and human fulfillment is the measuring yardstick. It is those strengths that make Utilitarianism the most dominant ethic.
Nonetheless, applying Mill’s viewpoint raises problems with some evidential implications in the calculus. The metaphor of “made by consensus” does nothing to offer moral prohibitions against doing while suffering individuals cannot and should not be treated just as means to some end for the sake of the whole group. Although, in reality, justice loosely correlates with utility, unusual cases, when the purpose of happiness is colored with sacrifice, acknowledge the true thinning down of Utilitarianism. According to the theory, agents are expected to observe neutrally. That means they cannot use the effect of their decisions as determining factors for their actions. On the other hand, moral agents carry deep connections to the consequences generated from their choices and guilt, which is very sound in the unmetrical welfare analysis.
In conclusion, Utilitarianism establishes the significance of human happiness as a moral value that balances out other critical values and preserves an applicable systematic order in our ethical practices.
On the other hand, the sole dependence on centralized welfare purpose does not precisely fit the importance of side aspects of ethics that deal with the rights of the individuals and their direct responsibilities as individual agents. It is true that just like every other ethical theory out there, this one proposed by Mill is just one part of moral reality and thus needs to explain the whole picture. Making room for Utilitarianism, not necessarily synthesizing it with a separate theory but using a pluralist approach, might have a better practical outcome than unquestioningly employing any one system alone. Utilitarianism is one of the voices to which attention has to be paid in this broader dialogue regarding the sense of moral reality.
Work Cited
Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son and Bourn.
write