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

    Otherwise Mill states that foolish actions do not deserve penalties, and that mature individuals should be left to develop and coagulate their own views and act on their own impulses. All society can do is help educate its members as to what is moral and immoral before they reach the

  2. Why are justice and integrity problematic for utilitarianism?

    The idea of making someone dissolve their own moral commitments is commonly termed alienation, in that it requires the person to be alienated from their view to act in a utilitarian manner. Perhaps the most popular example of this is from Stocker's article Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories2 in which he discusses a friend visiting a patient in hospital.

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

    According to act utilitarians, when determining whether the act is right, it is the value or the quality of the consequences of the particular act that count. I may break any law, if in that situation, greater happiness will result.

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

    He is saying that if you desire something then it is actually desirable. If the mind is not in a virtuous state then it is not in a right frame of mind. Mills would tell the sadistic voyeur not to open the curtain.

  2. Assess Utilitarianism

    There are several obvious flaws with this calculus. First of all, it's all extremely vague. Most of these variables, such as intensity, are relative. What units could you use? There is no way that two people will get the same result from this calculus, which is the whole point. Using this, there could never be any set morals.

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

    are my own, not by causes which affect me, as it were, from outside." By participating in your government and thinking for yourself you can achieve self mastery. By having political self-mastery you are free to form a society which forms your values, which leads to democracy.

  2. Nietzsche and Mill on Conventional Morality

    Of course, the point Mill is trying to illustrate is that if people desire happiness then happiness is desirable, and so as a collective we should aim to maximise this. The problem he has is that seemingly at no point does he justify this collective idealism.

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