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

What is the most telling objection to Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

What is the most telling objection to Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle? Jeremy Bentham founded utilitarianism in the nineteenth century as an ethical principle. In its original form utilitarianism had numerous deficiencies and was heavily criticised by philosophers and advocates alike. John Stuart Mill later refined and modified utilitarianism as to make it more accessible to society. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) a philosopher and Economist was one of the most influential liberal thinkers of the nineteenth century. The son of James Mill, John was given an intensive private education, in which he began Greek at the age of three, and Latin at the age of eight. John Stuart Mill was an advocate of utilitarianism, "The Greatest Happiness Principle". The doctrine was key in the naissance of many humanitarian landmarks in the nineteenth century. The reform acts of 1832 and 1867 were spearheaded by ideals of utility. Utilitarianism was the spine upon which democracy was built. This very simple doctrine has been at the centre of much criticism. This essay aims to explore whether such criticism is founded and if so why? The following essay will encompass the major objections leveled at utilitarianism. ...read more.

Middle

To spend an evening out with friends, therefore, would be morally wrong. One could be doing aid or charity work instead and thus be increasing the general 'happiness' of the general population. According to utilitarianism, therefore, socialising is wrong. So would other innocent self-indulgent actions such as "sleeping in" on a Sunday. By the same token when should one stop giving money away to charity? Well one should only theoretically stop when you cannot increase the general happiness of the population. Utilitarianism is clearly and impracticable ideal that could never work in contemporary society. Utilitarianism does not validate motives. The "rightness" of an action depends on its ability to produce happiness with no reference to its motive. Can a moral code stay ambivalent over such critical matters? Clearly ones motive is as, if not more important than its consequences. Despite these valid points utilitarianism is only concerned with consequences of actions. But how is it possible to calculate all the possible consequences of an action? How can we ever be sure that any action will produce the greatest net happiness? We might be able to assume, with some certainty, that action (A) ...read more.

Conclusion

Such actions are intrinsically wrong. Deciding what is right and wrong requires more than a mere analysis of effects. One must move away from teleological theories and towards those that consider the extent to which the morality of an act depends on the nature of the act itself. Many objections have been levelled at utilitarianism. Each valid and unrelenting in its criticism. Utilitarianism at a glance advocates injustice, lying and stealing as long as they promote "the general happiness of the population". One must not forget, however, that utilitarianism was instrumental in creating ideals and standards in relation to humanity in the nineteenth century. If utilitarianism was so unpractical would have been so influential in so many key landmarks throughout history? In contemporary society, however, it is just an ideal and not a workable solution. For this reason the theory is deemed with considerable antagonism. How can one follow a doctrine that is almost impossible to accurately interpret? One, therefore, could never be truly a utilitarian or live by its manifesto. How can a doctrine state innocent self-indulgent actions such as socialising with ones friends as morally wrong? How can one ever accurately predict another's reaction? In conclusion the inaccessibility of utilitarianism is its major flaw. ...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 Philosophy 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 Philosophy essays

  1. Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an unfair system of ethics which could not work in the ...

    However, there are a number of criticisms for act utilitarianism, the main fault is that it has the potential to justify virtually any act if, in that particular case, the result generates the most happiness. Another problem is that it's impractical to suggest that we should measure each and every

  2. Philosophy: Life After Death Analysis

    This could only be escaped by cumulative good deeds, which would free you from the cycle. Though this would appear to have as many problems as a dualist soul that transmigrates to heaven (namely that we cannot find the soul and there is no proof of the afterlife as we haven't gone there)

  1. Compare, contrast and evaluate Plato and Mill on the relationship between individual and society

    of conduct in our dealing with others in return for the protection we receive from society. For example, we are bound to observe and respect the rights of others and according to him "As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it".

  2. Discussing John Dewey.

    if he also agrees with Hegel that the starting point of philosophic thought is bound to be the dialectical situation in which one finds oneself caught in one's own time. (Rorty, Richard, Qtd. in Cahn, New Studies in the Philosophy of John Dewey.

  1. Utilitarianism. Identify the main problems of Utilitarianism. To what extent do these make ...

    Utilitarianism is based purely on human experience which means again it will appeal to more people and it also helps people to understand the aspects of it as they can see the ideas and ways for themselves in the world around them.

  2. Nietzsche and Mill on Conventional Morality

    Mill differs from the view of Conventional Morality only on how the value of an action should be judged, not really on the course of action that should be taken, however he rightly recognised the huge implications of this seemingly minor difference.

  1. Assess Utilitarianism

    Is there a single sensation known as 'pleasure'? Are they just not sensations which we enjoy, but of which none are the same? Aristotle made this point, suggesting that "pain is not a single sensation", which would completely flatten this theory. Finally, how do we know what consequences are actually relevant to the morality of an act?

  2. Compare and Contrast the Philisophical Contributions of Nietzsche and Mill to our understanding of ...

    of others, but Mill feels this can be done without physically or mentally punishing those who behave in a way that people don't agree with. - "Benevolence can find other instrument than whips and scourges, either of the literal or metaphorical sort" So, if a person shows "rashness, obstinacy or

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