What Is John Mills Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a prominent theory, which is defined as an action that is considered to encourage happiness and pleasure within a social context, and if it fails, then it tends to promote harm to the environment. However, John Mills disagrees with this definition and instead he believes that everyone’s happiness is intrinsically good for them. This, in brief, is the argument from Mills. The following shall be an examination of his theory. I will then examine defences to his opinion as presented by Jeremy Bentham, Henry Sidgwick and Fred Feldman. I will argue against Mills opinion, that the consequences may be harsh for the society, despite them feeling pleasure. On the latter, I will argue that his difference between types of pleasures seems
Mills notion begins with the principle of utility, then he emphasises that the only consequences that are significant, are the ones which promote either happiness or unhappiness. 5 Throughout Mills text about utilitarianism, it is stated that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mills,1863). This reveals that if the individual performs an action and in the end, everybody is happy, this means the action is morally correct. Mills says that if the action makes the society feel pain, this means it is the morally wrong thing to do. As an example, if a man donated his kidney to his mother because she was suffering. The man would now always suffer due to his kidney being removed. The mother is now happy, as she can function her body correctly. Linking back to Mill’s theory this now means that the son did the morally wrong thing by helping his mother. This reveals a major disadvantage to Mills theory and we begin to understand his way of thinking. As the text continues, the author expresses many different ideas, including the fact that he believes that humans can experience much higher pleasures than animals. This can include feelings of love and family. 6 Mill states “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; 7 better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (Mills,1863). This clearly emphasises
It is plausible to think that the main aim in life is to be happy, no matter what the consequences are. However, as I have argued, we cannot assume that everybody’s pleasures are going to be the same and produce the same outcome. Thus, John Stuart Mill fails to supply adequate information to support his claim, as the evidence above states he focuses on the wrong fundamentals. Both Read and Feldman’s arguments link to one another and develop the idea on how Mills theory is inconsistent. Read’s argument brings about a new point of view, which states that it can be profoundly said that the intensity and duration clearly affect the amount of utility that, that person has. In Read’s argument, it references to “social good” clearly emphasising that individual’s actions can affect the environment they are in. Mills argument is clearly controversial, utilitarianism is a polemical topic that resides especially in today’s fast moving society, where simplicity has been replaced by quantity. Thus, wondering if Mills theory must be examined in more detail to understand if his ethics are suitable for a large scale of