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.

Authors Avatar

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. If the difference in the consequences of the other actions is not great, some utilitarians do not regard the choice between them as a moral issue. According to Mill, acts should be classified as morally right or wrong only if the consequences are of such significance that a person would wish to see the cause required, not merely changed and enforced, to act in the favored manner.

Looking at the consequences of actions, utilitarianism relies upon some theory of intrinsic value. Something held to be good in itself apart from its consequences; all other values seem to this intrinsic good as a means to an end. Mill was a hedonist, which means that he analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure and pain and also believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value. Mill had two views; one of hedonism is the definition of a persons well being determined by their pleasure. The other view, utilitarianism holds the theory of right action has more worth in proportion to increasing the well being of a person. Utilitarians also assume that it is possible to compare the intrinsic value produced by two different actions then see which one would have a better consequence. For example should a woman who is very wealthy give her money to an endangered species organization or to a scientific organization that is developing a cure for human diseases such as cancer and aids.  Since it is judgment of intrinsic value would she get more happiness from the outcome saving the lives of endangered species or from saving lives of humans? It is up to her from a utilitarian view to compare the two and see how much happiness she would get from each.

Join now!

Another point the utilitarianism view suggests is that humans should maximize their overall happiness. But this would result in the ridiculous conclusion that we should always be doing everything possible to maximize happiness. This would mean that we would be acting immorally majority of the time.  For example say someone was in need a new heart to survive, but the surgeon did not want to come into work that day because he would be happier if he went to the baseball game.  He would be risking your life to maximize his overall happiness.  Most of the examples to maximize overall ...

This is a preview of the whole essay