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

Extracts from this essay...

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.

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)

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.

The above preview is unformatted text

Found what you're looking for?

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

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Over 180,000 student essays
  • Every subject and level covered
  • Thousands of essays marked by teachers

Related AS and A Level Philosophy

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

    The other philosopher in question, Frederic Nietzsche, German philosopher of the late 19th century challenged the foundations of traditional morality and Christianity. He believed in life, creativity, health, and the realities of the world we live in, rather than those situated in a world beyond.

  2. Discussing John Dewey.

    If the "inconclusive integrity of experience" is the starting point for Dewey's philosophic method, it can not also begin with current society. It must start with the first experience. Either the basis for philosophic discussion is a historical account of the inconclusive integrity of man or the experiences of current society in which one finds oneself.

  1. UTILITARIANISM In this paper I will be discussing utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the theory ...

    Mills wants to know how long is the sadistic voyeur's pleasure going to last, and what is the quantity of pleasure he will gain. The sadistic Voyeur's pleasure will not last long at all. When the men get finished raping the woman his desire might be fulfilled for that day,

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

    The question which then comes from this is 'how do we know what we desire?' Some situations may offer an obvious answer to this question but in others it may be much harder to find. Mill said: "Ask yourself whether your happy and you will cease to be so."

  1. Nietzsche and Mill on Conventional Morality

    The difference lies in the differentiation between the value of the action and the level of blame/credit given to the person committing that action. Mill's Utilitarianism would advocate almost exactly the same course of action as Conventional Morality in most situations.

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

    Right and wrong, according to a utilitarian, are relative to the people involved and the things which give them happiness. If I'm in a situation in which lying will create the greatest pleasure, then I should lie. If, in the next situation, lying brings about a lesser results than telling the truth, then I should tell the truth.

  1. Philosophy: Life After Death Analysis

    Referring to the original question of the soul's location, Descartes may have hoisted himself by his own Petard. Where Plato could simply say the form and body were blended by the demiurge, Descartes spoke of an absolute divide -

  2. 'Human nature is so constituted as to desire nothing which is not either part ...

    However, Roger Crisp argues that Mill was not intending to define but to suggest that 'happiness is good, desirable, an end'3. Another criticism is that what is desired is not necessarily good and that 'there may be desirable objects which are not desired'4 Nevertheless, Mill is fairly successful in showing

  • Over 180,000 essays
    written by students
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to write
    your own great essays

Marked by a teacher

This essay has been marked by one of our great teachers. You can read the full teachers notes when you download the essay.

Peer reviewed

This essay has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay reviewing squad. Read the full review on the essay page.

Peer reviewed

This essay has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay reviewing squad. Read the full review under the essay preview on this page.