My Understanding of Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher and economist, and feminist and civil servant. Famous for his work on "Utilitarianism" and On Liberty. The utilitarianism was originally writing by Jeremy Bentham and later redeveloped by John Stuart Mill. In the Mill Utilitarianism in the 1861, was to cover the explanation of utilitarian moral theory. In the way to respond the criticism of the doctrine, he was not only argued in the basic's favor principle of the Jeremy Bentham but; it also offered him an important improvement to the structure, meaning, and the application. Mill principle of utility was that as he said, Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure (Utilitarianism 2).

So, he was said that the decision should always be the benefit in the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. It had assumed him that the outset of everyone would agree in the consequences of the human actions that contribute an important on their moral value. Even though he is fully accepted Bentham's devotion on the greatest happiness principle as the basic of the statement to the utilitarian value. And Pleasure and freedom of pain are the only things desirable as ends.

John Mill defines of the Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based on the principle that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Mill also defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. Which also it is a commonly that on the associated with the phrase of the greatest good for the greatest number and it is also that requires the people to act in every way that will cause in the greatest of possible in the well's amount-being. Also, the consequence principle is the way to view the rightness and wrongness of acts depends entirely on facts about the consequences of acts. Which means no acts are the right of itself and no acts are wrong of itself. To Mill, not only the utility is the pursuit of the happiness, but also it is the prevention of the unhappiness and the pain. So, this shows to be the truest of the theory on the purpose of the human life because the happiness is including with the endless of the pursuit to prevent of the pain. Mill is made a couple argues such as the pleasure that can be different from the quality and quantity and he was arguing that people can achievement goal and ends, which they should counted as the part of their happiness. Furthermore, Mill also argument the virtue and happiness.

In fact, the difference of the quality of a pleasure to be the considered as well as the difference in the quantity. So that, Mill started argues that the difference of the quality is to be the measured in preferences rather than quality. As he statements, Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure (Utilitarianism 2). Mill was to be recognizing the between in the higher and lower of the pleasures in order to respond the philosophy. However, the difference between the quality and quantity is not something new. Which Mill state himself that utilitarian writers in general have placed the superiority of mental over bodily pleasures which it seems like he rejects to the measure of the pleasure. So, I think this passage was a very important in two different reasons. First, it is showing the Mill democratic political theory, because as he was argued here on the value of the pleasures is processing the consensus of the who had the experience of the pleasures. In the second reason is which that Mill claim in the intellectual of the pleasures is a qualitatively different from the pleasures.

he also argument the virtue and happiness. Which he said, those who desire virtue for its own sake, desire it either because the consciousness of it is a pleasure, or because the consciousness of being without it is a pain, or for both reasons united. What he means in this quote that the virtue and happiness they are related but, they are not the same things. So, he was knowledges that some people they not seek for the virtue. But, at the same he was argument that the virtues are the definition of the happiness. So, the virtue is connected with the higher pleasures. According to John Mill the justice is based on the utility. Which he is saying, The justice which is grounded on utility to be the chief part, and incomparably the most sacred and binding part, of all morality. He was arguing that in the justice is the base of the utility, and the justice is the goal that is promote and protecting the happiness. John Mill provide a couple proof of the utilitarianism that can back him for his argument. Such as the only proof that can object is visible is that people actually see it, in like manner, the sole evidence that something is desirable is that people do desire it. And everything of value (knowledge, beauty) is only valuable to happiness- they are derided from it happiness has many ingredients such as truth, freedom and each ingredient is desirable in itself.

I think this utilitarianism there were a couple minor problems with the argument of the utilitarian. I could not understand the way one measure happiness and will to decide which action that would result in the greatest happiness for everyone that involved. And there were other problems. So, there many arguments that against weather the utilitarianism is provide the possible in the base for making the moral decision. So, I think the argument that against the utilitarian is that there is no agreement about the good that would maximize all the concerned in every different situation. Also, this means that they can take the view as it is okay, and on therefore right to carry out on the action which also is wrong as long as it has the good consequences for the majority of the people. An example, in the wrong side, in the society there is many bad things, there is a lot of murder. no murder being convinces, in the public might feel threatened and unhappy with the murder. So, if the police were the utilitarian and he was under the pressure to find out the murder attackers. Then he will feel it is right to convict an innocent person just for to make the greatest number of people for their saft and therefore happier. It means that utilitarian could not the different between an accidental death or murder.

So, utilitarianism as a principle does not consider the individual but it is a collective and there are instances where the individuals and the individual interests should be value more as well. Besides, does the utilitarianism give an excuse to killed somebody because that person life is in full pain and it become worst. For example, someone is suffering in the hospital a lot. So, the utilitatn might think it is a good idea to kill this person. And this is not providing for them anything that brought a happiness. It also brings unhappiness to the family and they will be suffered more. However, it is injustice and morally wrong on kill that person. I think greatest number of good can also be an effective way of the defeating selfishness. It is a lot of circumstances in the right action is the only to have the best consequences. For example, a father went to play a golf on the Sunday morning, but his children went to go with him. So, if the father was the utilitarian, he would figure out that his children's happiness is more important that his individual happiness. So, he would take them him which also a good thing to do.

In conclusion, I didn't understand very well on the utilitarianism because it was a lot confusion. So, there were couple things I disagree with. So, the two key concepts of the utilitarian of the happiness and conquesquences were the main problematic when it comes to the utilitarianism. I think that the utilitarian provided an adequate in the base of making the moral decision to amount weather it is good and moral in the right to promotes happiness and the greatest happiness for the greatest number and is therefore right. However, the principle of the justices and the individual right are avoid the utilitarianisms especially when it comes the concerned other and the innocent.

Cite this page