Essay Sample on Utilitarianism

2010/11/2 (Tuesday) | Filed under: Sample Essays

During the first half of the nineteenth century Jeremy Bentham proposed a quantification, or calculus, of morality by reference to utilitarian outcomes. Bentham’s moral theory was founded on the assumption that it is the consequences of human actions that count in evaluating their merit and that the consequence that matters most for human happiness is the achievement of pleasure and avoidance of pain. He argued that the value of any human action is easily calculated by considering how intensely its pleasure is felt, how long that pleasure lasts, how certainly and how quickly it follows upon the performance of the action, and how likely it is to produce collateral benefits and avoid collateral harms. And, since the happiness of the community as a whole is nothing other than the sum of individual human interests, the principle of utility defines the meaning of moral obligation by reference to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people who are affected by performance of an action.

A generation later, John Stuart Mill not only argued in favor of the basic principles of Bentham’s theory, but also offered several significant improvements to its structure, meaning, and application. Utilitarianism, written by Mill in 1861, is an extended explanation of utilitarian moral theory that provides support for the theory and responds to criticisms of the doctrine. Mill fully accepted Bentham’s endorsement of the greatest happiness principle as the basic statement of utilitarian value, and consequently defined utilitarianism as a theory in which “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Utilitarianism,346), where happiness is regarded as pleasure and the absence of pain, but he did not agree that all differences among pleasures can be quantified. Mill maintained that pleasures that are rooted in one’s higher faculties should be weighted more heavily than baser pleasures, arguing that “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” (Utilitarianism,348). In other words, intellectual pleasures are more desirable than those pleasures derived from physical experiences. Unlike Bentham, Mill thought it irrational and unlikely that an individual could calculate accurately, in every instance, the effects of their actions. Consequently, Mill proposed that we allow our actions to be guided by moral rules, and that the value of each particular action is to be determined by reference to the principle of utility itself.

In order to support the principle of utility, Mill had to prove that happiness is mankind’s ultimate goal and the only thing one strives for. To do so, Mill expanded his definition of happiness to include anything that a man may wish to achieve or desire. Mill stated, “happiness is not an abstract idea but a concrete whole” (Utilitarianism, 362). He explains that happiness is made up of many “parts”, these parts including all things desirable, such as health and virtue. By clerifying his definition of happiness Mill is able to show that happiness is the ultimate end and therefore our basis for morality. He concludes that humans desire nothing beyond things which are means to happiness or are themselves a part of happiness. Mill calls on the reader to decide for himself if he believes happiness really is our sole end.

In the evaluation of the argument for the principle of utility, much of its validity is based on the assumption that happiness is the ultimate end and the only thing humans ever desire. However, can we group all of our ideals and goals under happiness? Are they all merely componets of happiness, not to be desired in and for themselves? If one chooses to reject this premiss and believe there is a higher end for which ideals such virtue and honesty must be obtained, then then the entire utilitarianism theory falls apart. For example, if one believes our ultimate end was self-actualization and that honesty did not always bring happiness, but it did however promote self-actualization, then the principle of utility does not apply. No longer is the right thing to do the choice that brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Often, doing the right thing may not bring the individual or the group happiness, it is simply the right thing to do.
There seem to be three fundamental principles that one may derive from the theory of utilitarianism; that the virtue of an action can be determined by the consequences of that act, consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness produced, and a moral individual is one who values the happiness of every individual equally. In light of this, Mill’s beliefs are comparable to those of Immanuel Kant. Kant viewed society as a kingdom of ends, in which every individual respects the goals of purposes of all individuals within the society. The happiness of every individual is equally important.

Both Mill and Kant are absolutists, as they both propose a theory of morality that attempts to provide a complete theory of ethics and both philosophers propose a framework of rules that are universally applicable. In Kant, this is most evident in his imperatives, which help to universalize laws considered valid for each individual. Kant’s hypothetical imperatives, or those that are considered valid as means to an end, seem to parallel Mill’s concept of utility in which an action (the means) is performed in order to increase happiness (the end). Mill’s rule utilitarianism sets forth general rules of conduct in order to increase general happiness. This utilitarianism is not specifically concerned with individual actions, and is far more Kantian than the act utilitarianism first proposed by Bentham. Act utilitarianism is not universally applicable as it would only serve to increase the happiness of one individual, and since individual happiness may conflict, then it would not necessarily produce an increase in happiness for the greatest number of individuals. Application of moral principles is essential to creating a universal ethical theory, and both Mill and Kant offer sound theories through which this may be achieved.

Mill diverges from Kant in that he believes happiness is our ultimate end. As stated earlier, Mill defines happiness as the presence of pleasure and absence of pain. His definition is also expanded to include all desirable ideals as well. Kant, however, argues that there must be a higher end than happiness. To support this idea Kant asks why humans have the capacity for reason if happiness can be achieved simply by instinct. Therefore, there must be a higher end for which reason is required. Kant concludes that reason exists to achieve a good will, the highest end for which we all must strive. Kant states that a good will is the only thing that can be called good without qualification. Happiness, as defined by Kant, is a good which must be qualified and that good will is a prerequisite of happiness. Kant’s definition of happiness lacks Mill’s expansion, allowing Kant to conclude that happiness is a consequence of having a good will, but not the only consequence. Kant argues that sometimes what is right and what would make us happy can be two different choices, but that we must chose the one that supports having a good will. In this way, Kant’s idea of morality differs from that of Mill in that moral acts do not always result in happiness as they do when using the principle of utility.

In comparing the views of both Kant and Mill they each have comprehensive and well supported theories of morality. However, the utilitarian view, based on the fact that all moral acts are the ones that bring the greatest amount of happiness, is somewhat weak. It is often found in the real world that many moral actions are not always actions which bring happiness. This is congruent with Kant’s theory that we must strive to have a good will, even if that means one is not always happy. Therefore, Kant’s theory may be deemed more plausible.

In composing a broad argument, supported in part by many philosophers, Mill has shown that his theory can be both relevant for the individual and universally applicable. His theory provides both a set of rules governing moral actions and a method by which to judge these actions, resulting in a universally applicable theory in which the happiness of the greatest number of individuals is favored. In application, human beings collectively develop rules or norms to aid them in their efforts to maximize their happiness, and the principle of utility judges these norms, with the end result being the increase in general happiness. Such improvement is the overall trend of societal development, with the goal being to maximize the general well being. Since each person aims to maximize his or her own happiness, the overall effect will be to maximize the pleasure of all. There is the natural sympathy of human kind, for those that are close to us, and in this tendency, each is inclined to feel as others feel, so that the ends of others become naturally our own ends. This yields common rather than conflicting ends. In this way, the good of all people becomes part of the good of each. Each of us thus comes to move in unity with our colleagues for the good of each and all. Indeed, Mill states that “each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons”(Utilitarianism,361). Our natural sympathy thus works to establish a set of social relations that unite individuals into a community. By learning from the criticisms brought against other philosophers, and by addressing many criticisms against his own theory, Mill has successfully managed to propose a theory whose merit cannot be denied. Although the progress of moral philosophy has been limited by its endless disputes over the reality and nature of the highest good that Mill assumed from the outset, everyone can agree that the consequences of human actions contribute greatly to their moral value. With each successive era, new philosophers succeed where others have failed, and although none have succeeded in imposing a universal system of ethical thought, Mill’s ingenious philosophy continues to be extremely influential in modern day philosophy.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

back to top