The theory of utilitarianism by john stuart mill as a development of the earlier theory of jeremy be
Act utilitarians claim that their theory provides good reasons to reject many ordinary moral claims and to replace them with moral views that are based on the effects of actions. Oxford, Thirteen essays on utilitarianism, many focused on issues concerning rule utilitarianism.
Insofar as moral rights secure the basis of our existence, they serve our natural interest in self-preservation — this is the reason why their harm calls forth such intense emotional reactions. He suggests that many of the problems arise under the traditional formulation because the conscientious utilitarian ends up having to make up for the failings of others and so contributing more than their fair share.
Mill believes that the breach of the rule is wrong because it is actually harmful. However, moral laws, permissions, and prohibitions are not made for omniscient and impartial observers, but instead for cognitively limited and partial beings like humans whose actions are mainly guided by acquired dispositions.
The distinctions he makes strike many as intuitively plausible ones.
One feels guilt for what one has done, not for what one sees another doing. Instead, he argues that those persons who have experienced both view the higher as better than the lower. Stop signs forbid drivers to go through an intersection without stopping, even if the driver sees that there are no cars approaching and thus no danger in not stopping. Some rules can identify types of situations in which the prohibition is over-ridden. For writers like Shaftesbury and Hutcheson the main contrast was with egoism rather than rationalism. He also notes that, contrary to what its critics might say, there is "no known Epicurean theory of life which does not assign to the pleasures of the intellect… a much higher value as pleasures than to those of mere sensation. In the course of our socialization, goods, like knowledge, virtue, wealth or fame acquire value by their association with pleasure.
Ethical Theory. The tacit influence of the principle of utility made sure that a considerable part of the moral code of our society is justified promotes general well-being. According to Mill, there is no form of government that is appropriate in all times and places.
This approach to utilitarianism, however, is not theoretically clean in the sense that it isn't clear what essential work God does, at least in terms of normative ethics.
Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. Rule utilitarians generalize from this type of case and claim that our knowledge of human behavior shows that there are many cases in which general rules or practices are more likely to promote good effects than simply telling people to do whatever they think is best in each individual case. But as we have seen, this is not his view. From this perspective, we need rules that deal with types or classes of actions: killing, stealing, lying, cheating, taking care of our friends or family, punishing people for crimes, aiding people in need, etc. But this is absurd. Simple-minded pleasures, sensual pleasures, were just as good, at least intrinsically, than more sophisticated and complex pleasures. Miller, in Chapter 6, argues that Mill was a rule utilitarian. Let us consider the following example: Which world would be better: world X in which humans have a fulfilled life and a bad one, or world Y in which humans have a fulfilled life and an impoverished one? The principle of utility governs not only morality, but also prudence and taste CW 8, It is doubtlessly not the same to say that an action is right if it actually facilitates happiness, or to say that it is right if it tends to facilitate happiness.
Another is the question as to whether it would facilitate happiness to educate humans such that they would have the disposition to maximize situational utility. There is one famous passage where Hume likens moral discrimination to the perception of secondary qualities, such as color.
John stuart mill utilitarianism
Humans strive for virtue and other goods only if they are associated with the natural and original tendency to seek pleasure and avoid pain. We know that the pleasure of kicking someone is generally outweighed by the pain inflicted on that person, so such calculations when confronted with a temptation to kick someone are unnecessary. Judges, Doctors, and Promise-makers Critics of act utilitarianism claim that it allows judges to sentence innocent people to severe punishments when doing so will maximize utility, allows doctors to kill healthy patients if by doing so, they can use the organs of one person to save more lives, and allows people to break promises if that will create slightly more benefits than keeping the promise. According to rule utilitarians, this can only be justified if a rule that permits punishments after a fair trial, etc. If happiness as such is valuable, it is not unreasonable to promote the well-being of all sentient beings. It bolsters support for Bentham's philosophy and refutes certain misconceptions about it. Animals also lack the capacity for moral discrimination and would therefore seem to lack the moral sense.
Some may be wrong because they violate liberty, or autonomy.
based on 32 review