• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

I will be discussing John Stewart Mill theory on utilitarianism. Then I will point out an important objection the to his ethical theory. Then in conclusion I will compare and contrast the theory of utilitarianism to ethical vegetarianism.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Utilitarianism I will be discussing John Stewart Mill theory on utilitarianism. Then I will point out an important objection the to his ethical theory. Then in conclusion I will compare and contrast the theory of utilitarianism to ethical vegetarianism. John Stewart Mill is the man most famous for using the utilitarianism view. It can be used to answer the practical question "What ought a man to do?" The utilitarian answer is to act in a manner to produce the best consequences possible for an action. This means that the moral worth of an action is determined by the action's consequences. So the view of utilitarianism is also the view of a consequentialist. One of the main views of utilitarianism is the greatest happiness view. Mill states "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness." From this statement it should be clear that utilitarianism is a consequentialist view. The moral worth of an action, by whether it produces pleasure or pain, is determined by its consequence. Consequences of the utilitarian includes all of the good and bad produced by the action, whether happening after the action has been performed or during its performance. ...read more.

Middle

In conclusion there are three ways to maximize your overall happiness according to Mill. The first is overall happiness. You add up all the happiness in the word and then subtract the unhappiness. There will always be happiness in the world until unhappiness out weighs happiness. The second is average happiness. That is to have all the people in the world have the exact same amount of happiness as everyone else. The third is maximization of everyone's happiness to the fullest extent. Philosophers spend years trying to think of objections to views of the great philosophers. It would be hard for me to find a concrete objection to utilitarianism in a week. So the objection that I think is the most established is the "rule" utilitarianism. Think of the whole world lying and stealing to maximize happiness would have bad consequences. But it is not certain that an occasional lie to avoid embarrassment or an occasional theft form a rich man would not have good consequences, and would be acceptable or even required by utilitarianism. But the utilitarian would answer that the widespread practice of such acts would result in loss of trustworthiness and security to society. To meet the objection too not permit the occasional lie or theft would bring about the "rule" utilitarianism. ...read more.

Conclusion

There is evidence that humans do not need to eat fish to survive; generations and generations of vegetarians have proved this. So the argument must be that eating meat or animals makes people happier for the utilitarian maximizing their happiness. But for this to be a good happiness eating meat must make people happier than they would be not eating meat. And that there is no way that they can get the same benefit without something of lower cost giving a equal or greater happiness. Would the actions of humans eating animals bring about better consequences than leaving them be, with out taking their population out of equilibrium? That is where we have to weigh out the best possible action from a utilitarian view. Would it be morally correct to slaughter the animals for our own pleasure? The utilitarian would have to ask himself one question. Would he get more happiness out of eating meat or saving the lives of thousands of animals in his lifetime? I think that Mills utilitarian view is very strong. Everyone makes his or her decisions in life to be happy. When we come to a hard decision we should look at the consequences of each action and see which one will bring about the most happiness, that one will usually be the correct decision. 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Practical Questions section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Practical Questions essays

  1. What are the Main Features of Utilitarianism as an Ethical Theory?

    The founder of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) said, "Nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain". He went on to define utility as "any object, which produces benefit, advantage, pleasure, goodness or happiness or tends to counter act mischief, pain, evil or unhappiness".

  2. Kant's theory of Ethics

    This means you should always treat people with the respect they deserve and treat yourself with the same respect you would treat others. Kant argues that we should all respect each other because we are free and rational agents who should abide by our own maxims if those maxims have been tested against the moral law.

  1. Explain Mills Version of Utilitarianism. Mills version of utilitarianism is morally unacceptable. Discuss.

    results would be judged equal to the result from an action done with good intentions. However, many utilitarian's would argue that utilitarianism applies not only to results, but also to desires and dispositions praise and blame, rules, institutions, and punishment.

  2. Outline and explain the ethical theory of utilitarianism b) ...

    It is impractical to start to measure the consequences of every action by this calculus. Furthermore how can all pleasure be so easily measured quantifiably? Can mankind compare the pleasure of eating a chocolate bar with watching one of their children grow up?

  1. "Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they ...

    And it is thus that our own decisions and interests can only be considered in contrast and similar weight to that of other people. In grasping this crude and make shift overview, I would like you to consider the following example which is at first believed to embrace and support

  2. Examine how Benthams utilitarianism may be applied to one ethical issue of your choice. ...

    * Certainty - the likeliness the pleasure/pain will occur. A pleasure that is 100% likely to occur is a higher pleasure than one that is only 50% likely to occur. * Intensity - How intense will the pleasure/pain be? A pleasure that will only bring a little bit of happiness is seen less valuable than one that would bring more.

  1. Natural Moral Law - in theory and in practice.

    St Paul said natural law ?is written on the heart of gentiles? so it is accessible to all and those who have conviction of faith will know its importance and reach heaven ? Aquinas? interpretation of Eudemonia. We use our talents as expressed in the parable of the talents to achieve this final cause.

  2. To what extent would you say Situation Ethics is a useful ethical theory?

    After mass killings murders and genocide being committed recently. It creates the problem of what people believe the most loving end could justify things what are really wrong. An example is Hitler and the Jews. Hitler caused the execution of 6 million Jews for a better Germany.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work