Pain And Pain In John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism

A Utilitarian is someone who believes that the morally correct act is whichever brings the greatest amount of pleasure to the largest number of people. If Jim was a Utilitarian in this case, then he will most likely kill one person in order to save nineteen others. As Bentham says, “Utilitarianism accepts the fact about reality and uses it as the foundation of its ethical doctrine”. Furthermore, killing one person to let nineteen others free is the morally correct thing to do because Benthem states, “ A morally good action is one that brings the greatest pleasure or happiness for all people involved” . In this act, Bentham would have used his list of criteria to show the amount of pleasure and pain in this situation to determine if he should
kill one person or do nothing in this situation. If Jim were using Betham’s list of criteria , the pleasure outweighs the pain if he were to kill one person, but the act of doing nothing to help is more painful than pleasurable.That being said, Jim is the one who happened to stumble across this act and if he could possibly do something to make things better, then he must do it. If Jim were not there, then the soldiers would have undoubtedly killed all twenty protestors. Nonetheless, because the captain presents Jim with the privilege of choosing either to kill one person or have them all die, then he should save nineteen lives for the sake of one. If Jim were to sit back and watched something bad happen, when he could have prevented it, then his hands would be dirty anyway and the act would be immoral. The act of either half is not necessarily one hundred percent moral because at least one Indian will in fact be murdered because of Jim’s action. In order to save lives Jim’s hands will have get dirty whichever act he choses. In the likelihood that Jim had not shown up, all of the Indians would have died. Jim was there at that moment for a reason; which a Utilitarian believes that they should do something that brings the greatest pleasure to the most people, and since he discovered the act he must do something to save as many people as possible. Jim should not think of it as killing that one individual, but think of it as killing a man whom already died, because they all were about to be killed if Jim hadn’t shown up. This is when Mill’s ideas come into play as a Utilitarian because he believes the morally ethical thing to do would be the greatest pleasure and the least consequences and even if he had a good intention it wouldn’t matter.
As Mill states, “ Only consequences matter and intention means nothing when determining the value of an act.” Which leads me to when, Bentham believes that pleasure and pain motivates everything we do. In Bentham’s case we would receive great pain by not doing anything, but we see it as pleasure if we get our hands dirty to save any lives, we could, because if it were not up to Jim they all would have been dead. Mill’s believes that we all all driven by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. That being said, an immoral action of Utilitarianism is one that creates more pain, which in this case the action of Jim not killing one man, but because he didn’t kill on man the soldiers kill all twenty people which generates more pain for the action. If Jim chooses not to kill one person in order to save the rest, the consequences are that they will all will be murdered. All in all, the morally optimal action Jim should do would be to kill one man, and save the other nineteen because it generates more pleasure for the greater
good. Additionally, because Jim gets to choose the person who he kills, someone who most likely is older may offer to take his life in order to save the others because he will be feeling great pleasure knowing that he is saving lives as well and is helping preserve life. If I were in this situation, I would most likely act like a Utilitarian and kill one person to let the other nineteen free.
I believe that people need to do what is best to help the greatest amount of people, and by doing so, you may benefit in some way, but more people benefit from that act which makes it moral. For instance, If you were to give ten thousand dollars to one family who is in need during the holidays it wouldn’t bring as much pleasure as if you were to give one thousand dollars to ten families. Throughout this semester, I had agreed with God’s providence and to preserve life and not kill; however, after reading Bethlem's and Mill’s views of Utilitarianism I believe there is a time when it's alright to murder, because in this case your preserving life of the nineteen Indians if you murder one. If you acted morally and did not kill one person, you're then sitting by watching twenty people being murdered and not preserving any lives. If I had the opportunity just like Jim had to save nineteen lives, then I would do it. I see this situation as preserving nineteen lives rather than killing one person; because if I did not show up, then all twenty of the Indians would have been killed and because I have the opportunity to prevent everyone being killed, then I will have to preserve as many lives as I can, even if that means taking the life of one individual. I mostly agree with Bentham's view of Utilitarianism because I think we all chose are actions based on a
list of criteria and whichever act we receive the most pleasure is the act that we are mostly likely to chose. Most people would in fact go over to a friends house, rather than doing homework, because we receive more pleasure from the relaxing rather than doing homework which is sometimes stressful. In summary, this act is preserving life for the greater good and it also brings the most pleasure to fit the greatest amount of people. Throughout this semester for Ethics, we have learned to preserve life and follow God’s providence, but there are occasions when you can help others out and do an immoral act in order to still have a morally good act.