NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Mills Arguments One renowned philosopher who dealt with the theory of utilitarianism was John Stuart Mill. Mill was the most important philosophers in Britain throughout the nineteenth century and defended the theory of utility alongside many critics. Various others argued that the simple obtainment of pleasure and evasion of pain was the sole objective of the utilitarian. Meaning that any form of pleasure, whether it be mental or bodily satisfaction, in the greatest amount possible was the only desirable end. Mill, in resistance to this, argues that the higher the quality of a pleasure, the more satisfied the agent would be. He stated that what makes one pleasure more costly than another is that if one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure (Mill).
He believes that even if a huge amount of lower pleasure is obtained, it still will not be as rewarding as a small amount of higher pleasure. Mill theorizes that it is not the agents own greatest happiness but the greatest amount of happiness altogether (Mill). And since it is rarely disputed that the noble character of one, usually gained by the enjoyment of noble pleasures, can be spread more easily to others than the character of one who is only exposed to the lesser pleasures in life, he draws the conclusion that one who experiences superior pleasures will in turn affect others in a more substantial way. Mill believes that whether considering the agent himself or the greater good of the community, the ultimate goal is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyment (Mill).
A personal-choice situation that would be significant in describing the ideas of John Stuart Mill would be as follows: A woman, who we will call Jen, is planning to buy a nice gift for her husband, who we will call Tom, his birthday is approaching and she is not quite sure what to get him. So, Jen decides to give him a choice between two options she has narrowed it down to. The first choice is giving him a certificate to obtain a free drink at a local bar everyday for the next month. The second choice is giving him tickets to a series of three writing workshops across town, which is being hosted by a well-known, best-selling author. Tom has always enjoyed going to the bar around the corner from their apartment to have a drink with his friends but he also aspires to be a great novelist. To figure out which option would be the right one in Mills opinion we must consult his theories once again.
Firstly, as was previously stated, Mill believes that the higher pleasures, those usually having to do with mental satisfaction rather than bodily gratification, are the more worthwhile of the two choices. Because of this, he would approve of the writing workshops as the noble, and therefore right decision. In addition, he would also point out that even though the free drinks will last longer than the workshops would, after the alcohol runs out, the guidance and ideas from the writing seminars will still be there. Mill would also state that the gift of the free drinks will most likely only affect the life of Tom, and it will in the long run promote more pain than pleasure because of the health repercussions that are likely to ensue. But, the gifts of the writing skills that will be obtained at the workshops have the potential to affect a great deal of people if the public receives Toms talents.
From an external point of view, those who believe in Mills theories of utilitarianism should find them quite clear and helpful. If an agent wishes to live a satisfying, noble life free of pain and filled with great happiness, he or she can follow the practices of Mill and in turn attempt to avoid the lesser pleasures and strive to attain the superior pleasures. Unfortunately, even though most people would not deny that the better choice of the two options in the posed situation would be that of the higher quality, it is almost human nature to settle for the easily attainable, less significant satisfaction than to go out of ones way to acquire the hard to reach, superior gratification. In like manner, minority groups might have no rights in a utilitarian regime. For example, was society largely violently anti-Semitic, the strict utilitarian should endorse the existence of Nazi-style concentration camps as long as they produced more overall happiness than misery.
One might object that any heterogeneous society would be happier than a homogeneous one and that the rights of all minorities should be preserved, or that one should strive to promote the happiness of everyone; however, where any particular minority is strongly and consistently despised by the majority, or the greatest overall happiness would be produced by that minority's destruction, there seems no clear utilitarian reason why it should be allowed to continue to exist. As Rachel's states, utilitarianism might also lead to distributive injustice. For instance, if one distributes wealth so that everyone was equally happy, one is obliged to prefer a situation wherein everybody is moderately happy to a situation wherein half the people are moderately happy and half very happy; whereas, if one distributes wealth so as to maximise either total or average utility, one must prefer a situation wherein a person (P) is extremely happy and the rest barely happy to a situation wherein everyone is moderately happy, as long as the happiness of P greatly outweighs the dissatisfaction of everybody else. Yet both preferred situations seem unfair. Utilitarian can only decide retrospectively whether an action was right or wrong and that one could never be certain that an alternate action might not have produced more general happiness (and, so, should have been pursued), so the rightness of an action can never be fully known; and secondly that utilitarianism is deeply counter-intuitive in its exclusive focus on an actions consequences at the expense of the intention behind it as these consequences cannot be certainly known in advance, it is simply a matter of luck whether an action is good or bad. Bibliography: JOHN STUART MILL - "UTILITARIANISM 1868 Speech on capital Punishment" Second Edition.
Edited by GEORGE SHER on 2001.
Free research essays on topics related to: john stuart mill, mill believes, greatest amount, mill, pleasure
Research essay sample on John Stuart Mill Mill Believes
