John Stuart Mill And Peter Singer Approach Moral Philosophy From A Utilitarian Perspective

Throughout Philosophy, morality is a central theme. Although each scholar views the definition of morality differently, the goal of people to be better and think for themselves is the main focus. Many philosophers have defined and categorized utilitarianism in different ways. In normative ethics, Jeremy Bentham believes an action is right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it produces the reverse of happiness but not just the happiness of a person who performed the action but also everyone that was affected by it (Duignan). Utilitarianism is the view that the morally right action is the action that has the most good (Driver). The foundation of morality in utilitarianism comes from utility or intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). In utilitarianism actions are evaluated by their utility instead of intrinsic properties of the actions (Skorupski 256). Utilitarianism says certain acts are right or wrong in themselves making us perform them or do not do them at all. On the contrary, concepts of the good go hand and hand with that of rights and obligation causing obligation to be determined by intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). John Stuart Mill theory of utilitarianism reveals what is utilitarianism, the morality, proof of validity, and the connection between justice and utility in the study of thinking.

This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.

John Stuart Mill, among other things, was an English philosopher and economist who lived from 1806 to 1873. Mill grew up being immersed in the principles of utilitarianism. Mill’s essay on utilitarianism, titled Utilitarianism, was written to debunk misconceptions of and to provide support for the ideology. Mill’s essay and argument span five chapters, where his discussions range from definitions, misconceptions, rewards, methods, and validity. Utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the “morally right action is the action that produces the most good” (Driver). Mill believed that, as humans, we have an obligation to perform the action that achieves the best or most positive result or outcome. The best consequence in the experiment, according to Mill, would be to save as many lives as possible, and that would entail Jim killing the one Indian in order to save the rest of the Indians. Saving as many lives as possible, although having to sacrifice one life, would be the best consequence because it is “considered the absolute good” (Shakil). For this reason, Mill would advise Jim to kill the one Indian. Killing one in order to save the lives of many others is the best outcome out of all the choices. One proponent of utilitarianism is consequentialism. Consequentialism is the notion that whether an action is morally right or wrong depends “entirely on its consequences. An action is right if it brings about the best outcome of the choices available” (Utilitarianism).

John Stuart Mill wrote on his moral theory of Utilitarianism, which many have refuted by explaining that it failed to respect the dignity and worth of human beings. Mills theory of utility bases an actions morality on its ability to create the maximum amount of happiness. Happiness as described by Mill, is the maximization of pleasure over grief. Some critics have even said that Mill’s theory degraded humans to swine as it belittled morals to come from pleasures of the body that even animals had. Mill defended his theory by stating that human happiness is much more complex than that of swine. I do not believe that Mill’s defense was particularly convincing, and many facets of his theory continue to degrade the dignity, values, and worth of humans.

Thus, the problem rests in the selfishness of affluent nations who do not distribute their grain to poor nations. By evenly distributing food, human suffering caused by absolute poverty could cease to exist. However, while both utilitarians promote selflessness as beneficial, they do so from different angles. Singer does not advocate unselfishness to increase our happiness, but because it is morally right. While Mill labels selfishness as the root of unhappiness in humans, Singer states instead that absolute poverty is “the principal cause of human misery” (Singer 220). Thus, Mill encourages unselfishness to end the suffering of the one who gives while Singer encourages it to end the suffering of the one who receives.

The belief that which is good is determined by what brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people laid the foundation for the principals of Mill’s utilitarianism. Within this calculation, he distinguishes between a higher and lower principle of the value of pleasure. However, this assertion that specific pleasures are more desirable than others adds a complexity to a theory that seems otherwise simplistic. In his belief of separate pleasures, the complication of what is desired versus what is desirable arises. Theses higher pleasures become arbitrary when they are defined desirable only once they have become desired pleasures. Mill counters with the idea that the literal action that produces the higher pleasures is

John Stuart Mill is considered one of the most influential philosophers of the nineteenth century. In the scholarly journal, “John Stuart Mill”, Christopher Macleod insights that, “He was a naturalist, a utilitarian, and a liberal, whose work explores the consequences of a thoroughgoing empiricist outlook” (1). One of the many things that he is widely known for is his contributions and insights of the wide spread physiological following of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism in a nutshell, is the ethical philosophy in which the needs of the highest number of people in a society over the needs of the lowest number of people is considered the ultimate choice. Mill’s interpretation of utilitarianism is that everything that is desirable is desired

John Stuart Mill introduces his assessment of Utilitarianism by stating how a standardized system in which people’s actions may be judged to differentiate between right and wrong has been minimal in progress. He expresses the misconception with the way utility is understood by the general populous and other philosophers. The struggle to lay the foundations in what constitutes as right and wrong dates longer back than 2000 years ago.

The utilitarian doctrine explains that there is no higher purpose in life than that of the pursuit of carnal pleasures. Notably, James Mill’s believed anti-Utilitarians should not judge Utilitarians based on this doctrine. According to Mill’s, the pleasure of human beings and pigs, as well as other animals, varies on diverse levels and human beings are capable of enduring pleasures that far exceed those of pigs. Moreover, Mill’s points out that the doctrine fails to mention specific pleasures, which only human beings have, such as intellectual or moral pleasures, nor any other form of pertinent human characteristics. After all, humans’ mental pleasures far exceed the mindset of swine. Due to circumstances, “utilitarianism does not recommend

I will be explaining John Stuart Mill’s view on ethics. This includes explaining the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, happiness, unhappiness, quality of pleasure, lying, and the relevance of time with his view. I will then explain how I agree with the principle of Rule Utilitarianism. I will also consider the objection of conflicting rules in Rule Utilitarianism as well as that of negative responsibility, giving my response to each.

In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.

In Chapters 2 and 4 of Utilitarianism, Mill responds and attempts to refute misconceptions and arguments against utilitarianism and further broadens his examination of happiness. Along with this he also defines the subtle differences in his own theory of utilitarianism. By claiming that it is better to be “better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”, Mill asserts that it is better to use one’s higher capacities to be aware of the world whilst being unsatisfied than to be ignorant and naïve but blissful.

This work has probably received more analysis than any other work on utilitarianism available. However, I seek to do here what many others have been unable to accomplish so far. I hope to, in five paragraphs, cover each of the chapters of Utilitarianism in enough depth to allow any reader to decide whether or not they subscribe to Mill's doctrine, and if so, which part or parts they subscribe to. I do this with the realization that much of Mill's deliberation in the text will be completely gone. I suggest that anyone who seeks to fully understand Mill's work should read it at length.

John Stuart Mill, in his Utilitarianism, turns morality into a practical problem. His moral theory is designed to help one evaluate his moral principles and senisibilites and be able to ajudicate conflictions in moral conflicts. Mill postulates that actions are right so far as they tend to promote happiness and minimize pain. This theory manifests itself as an impartial promotion of happiness. Morally "right" actions are ones which promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number number of people and reduce pain. Utilitarian moral theories need to be coupled with theories of well-being, so that we can point to what is being maximized through the moral theory's operation. Mill's moral theory is

In this paper I will present and critically assess the concept of the principle of utility as given by John Stuart Mill. In the essay “What Utilitarianism Is” #, Mill presents the theory of Utilitarianism, which he summarizes in his “utility” or “greatest happiness principle” # (Mill 89). Mill’s focus is based on an action’s resulting “happiness,” # pleasure and absences of pain, or “unhappiness,” # discomfort and the nonexistence of contentment, rather than the intentions involved (Mill 89). After evaluating Mill’s principle, I will then end this essay by discussing my personal opinion about the doctrine and how I believe it can be altered to better suit real-life situations.